Standing Committee B

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Would it be convenient if I were to respond to the point made this morning in relation to amendment No. 13? With your agreement, I shall comment now, because we have moved past that group of amendments.
 The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked about the interpretation of clause 10(2)(d), which requires the monitoring authority to 
''notify the allocating authority for the area of any case where it appears to the monitoring authority that a waste disposal authority . . . is or may be liable to a penalty''.
 He was concerned that the use of ''may be'' in that provision meant that the monitoring authority would have to inform the allocating authority if it predicted that the disposal authority might, in future, breach its allowances. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I have had it checked—that that is not the case. The word ''may'' is used to cover the situation in which, for example, there is a dispute about how much biodegradable municipal waste has been sent to landfill that would require further investigation, such as checks with the landfill operator, or that would require the allocating authority to take a decision. However, it must appear to the authority that the disposal authority is or could be currently liable and not that it could potentially become liable. That would be an absurd reading, given the possibility of trading. 
 Put another way, the requirement would be to notify the allocating authority in cases in which it appears to the monitoring authority that a WDA has or may have become liable to a penalty. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the hon. Gentleman.

David Amess: That is perfectly in order.

Norman Baker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I thank the Minister for having taken the trouble to investigate the matter with his colleagues. Whether or not the word is open to ambiguous interpretation, the Minister's comments are on the record, and that will be useful if anybody wishes to refer to the point.

David Amess: That is a splendid start to the afternoon's proceedings.Clause 10 Monitoring authorities

Clause 10 - Monitoring authorities

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
 clause 10, page 8, line 2, at end add 
 'and publish this audit annually.'.
 It is not my intention to delay the Committee much. Subsection (2)(b) contains the words 
''audit the performance of waste disposal authorities in the area in complying with their obligations under this Chapter''.
 I propose the addition of the helpful words 
''and publish this audit annually.''.
 The Minister may intend to publish the audit annually in any case, but the amendment is designed to clarify the matter and, should that not be the Minister's intention, to tease out of him why the audit should be kept secret. I have just received a nod from the Minister affirming that my amendment has had its desired result.

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would result in annual publication of the audit of performance of waste disposal authorities in complying with the waste-sent-to-landfills obligations specified in chapter 1. I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment, as it is perfectly reasonable. I want the allowance scheme in England to be as open and transparent as possible, and I am sure that that applies to the other countries of the United Kingdom. However, the amendment could have major resource implications for England—I know that the hon. Gentleman is hot on resources, as we found out this morning—as annual reports would be required for all 121 waste disposal authorities, including the unitary ones.
 In any case, as the hon. Gentleman surmised, the amendment is not necessary: the Bill already provides for allocating authorities to require monitoring authorities to keep a register of monitoring information. That could include information about the performance of waste disposal authorities, and regulations may provide for such a register to be open to public inspection and for members of the public to obtain copies of the information contained in it. We intend the register in England to be as open and accessible as possible to the public, and I assure the Committee that no information will be withheld without an extremely good reason. I have always been extremely keen on freedom of information and on providing information as fully as possible to the public and to interested bodies. Indeed, one of the two private Member's Bills that I attempted to pass through the House of Commons was a freedom of information Bill. Needless to say, it lapsed. 
 I hope, with that explanation, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, as what he seeks to do is already provided for.

Bill Wiggin: I am delighted to hear what the Minister has to say, particularly in the light of amendment No. 27, which we will discuss under clause 11. English Members of Parliament, in particular, will be able to ask a parliamentary question to find out information about their own authority every year.

John Hayes: I do not want to dilute the warm thanks that my hon. Friend is offering the Minister for his assurances. However, I just add one caveat: the information must be available in a comprehensible form in case those who want to access it do not have the necessary expertise. The published information must be in a form that is as comprehensible and
 accessible as possible. Frankly, not all local government information is.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention. Although I am not an expert in the workings of the Minister, I suspect that he will seek to do exactly that.

Jonathan Sayeed: Comprehensibility is certainly very useful, but common is also a very useful word. If waste disposal authorities lay out the information in a common fashion, WDAs may be compared with one another. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to ensure that information provided is comprehensible and laid out in a common form so that like can be compared with like?

Bill Wiggin: I assume that the Minister will take both those interventions on board.

Michael Meacher: Perhaps I could record the fact that I agree with both points. Comprehensibility is important, and I have striven to provide information on the pollution infantry, which provides information on 150 pollutants, in a manner that is understood by anoraks and ordinary people alike. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that information should be provided in a uniform, standard way, and I shall issue guidelines to ensure that that happens.

Bill Wiggin: It is unusual for me to score a point for the anoraks, but I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
 clause 10, page 8, line 15, at end add— 
 '(g) by request from the landfill operator inspect sites exempt from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.'.
 As the Committee will have noted, the clause concerns the monitoring authorities and the business of monitoring performance. In the previous short debate, we dealt with the importance of information being both available and appropriate. The amendment would add to the end of the clause a provision exempting operators from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. It is an attempt to add further, proper scrutiny to the process established in this part of the Bill. It adds to the spirit of the clause and plugs a loophole that might be said to exist, given the limits on the earlier legislation referred to in the amendment. We have said throughout our proceedings—particularly today, when we discussed scrutiny and performance monitoring in respect of the Bill's objectives—that the process must be clear, comprehensive and well understood. That is essential if we are to give public assurance about the implementation of the objectives. I hope that the amendment goes some way towards reinforcing that intent.

Jonathan Sayeed: Regulation is one of the key drivers of the waste management industry, and the effective enforcement of regulations is essential if we are to give
 investors confidence that there is a prospect of waste management resources going into new infrastructure. If environmental regulations are enforced effectively and assiduously, the introduction of new and higher standards should not be a problem.
 Some 120,000 sites are exempt from waste management licensing requirements, including golf courses. I know that the Minister has an interest in golf; his son—a very fine golfer—plays at the same club as I do. I have nothing against golf clubs, but, partly because of the funding arrangements, those sites are inspected less frequently by the Environment Agency than are the licensed waste management facilities operated by Environmental Services Association members. 
 The ESA gave oral evidence to the Select Committee inquiry into the future of waste management on 19 March 2002. It cited the example of an ESA member that operated a licensed waste management facility. Directly opposite that facility was a golf course that was, in places, 7 m higher than it had been in 1993 because of the volume of waste that it had received. That is one way of producing bunkers, I suppose, but I should not like to have to play my bunker shots from a waste dump. According to the ESA, there has been no formal inspection of that golf course by the Environment Agency. We need to ensure that all such sites are covered by the Bill. 
 That is a problem that runs through the Environment Agency. I have had complaints from metal recyclers that they are visited very frequently by what they describe as rather low-level, extremely poorly paid inspectors, who make life easy by going to an established and well-regulated metal recycler and complaining about where the rubbish bin is, or who say that things would be so much better if a desk were moved 3 in left or right. What they do not do, however, is go half a mile down the road to where a didicoi is stripping out the good bits of cars and dumping the rest all over the countryside. The Environment Agency should deal with the hard targets rather than the easy ones. Can the Minister confirm the ESA's figure of 120,000 sites being exempt from waste management licensing requirements—and, if that is so, what should be done about it?

Michael Meacher: I agree that it is important to ensure that exemptions from waste management regulations are not abused. Many allegations have been made about that in the media over the years, most notably in The Guardian and the ''Dispatches'' programme, and we examined them closely.
 The exemptions have been made to ensure that genuine recovery operations can take place with light touch regulation. However, like all administrative regulation, this could be abused; one has to be extremely careful about that. I am sure that hon. Members will support the principle, which is to gain value from the waste. However, abuse of the system is a serious matter, and it needs to be tackled vigorously. Indeed, over the past couple of years we have been reviewing the number of exemptions from waste 
 management licensing. Our survey was thorough, and we will shortly be consulting on our conclusions. 
 As part of the package, we propose that the Environment Agency should be required to inspect those exempt activities annually. The problem has arisen because the exemptions were not checked or tested regularly. When the consultation paper is issued, hon. Members will see that we have tightened up extensively and across the board. It is an area where I believe there has been substantial abuse.

Norman Baker: The Minister is making a reasonable point, but I am slightly concerned that the agency appears to be reducing the number of inspections, not increasing them. He will be aware that his parliamentary answers to me show a decline of about a third in the number of agency's inspections, and a catastrophic fall in its checking of the discharge of hazardous material into rivers. The agency appears unable to deal with its present inspection regime, let alone a new one.

Michael Meacher: I am conscious of the fact that the continual roll-call of European legislation, most if not all of which I consider desirable, imposes significant extra duties on the agency. We have attempted to match that with increased funding and an increase in the number of officers and inspectors employed by the agency. It now employs between 10,500 and 11,000 of them, which is substantially more than in 1997, and under the most recent spending review, which is now complete, the extra real-terms increase was in the order of £16 million. If I am not right, I shall correct those figures later.
 The increase in resources has been substantial, but I agree that there is continual pressure on them. However, all landfill sites will come within the ambit of the pollution prevention and control regulations under the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, or the IPPC, and no sites will be exempt from those requirements. We are trying to enforce coverage of the inspection system as tightly as we can.

David Drew: I was at a parish council meeting last night, speaking about some aspects of this problem. My right hon. Friend says that coverage already exists, but I am unsure whether the amendment would increase coverage, because it relies on the landfill operator to instigate inspections. With the best will in the world, the sort of people that we are talking about will not encourage further regulation or inspection, so I am uncertain what benefit the amendment would provide.

Michael Meacher: This is not my amendment, so it is not for me to promote it, but it would require monitoring authorities in each area of the UK to inspect sites that are exempt from the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, if asked to do so by the landfill operator. It would result in much tighter regulation of a system that is already supposed to be properly supervised, but in which there are many loopholes, as experience has shown. Inspections would be much tighter and more frequent. The landfill operator would have to provide much more detailed information, including the evidence to substantiate
 claims justifying exemption. To that extent, the amendment would extend coverage.

John Hayes: The Minister makes a good point about tightening the regime, but it might help the Committee and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) if he gave some examples of those areas that are not covered by the 1994 regulations. He properly referred to some of the stories of abuse that we have heard and to the issues that my amendment is designed to address, but it might be useful if he would briefly say where the problems lie. That would assist our discourse and answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire put his finger on the key issue: landscaping is a wonderful way of avoiding the exigencies of waste management regulation, and golf courses are indeed a classic example of that. Many golf courses have been created, allegedly because of the desire of local inhabitants to knock a ball around 36 holes—

Jonathan Sayeed: Or just 18.

Michael Meacher: Or even 18—but their construction was probably motivated by the capacity to landfill very large amounts of material in a way that is exempt from regulation. Golf courses are by far the most common example of that, but there are countless others. We intend to ensure that that cannot happen in future. The grounds to justify an assertion will have to be provided and checks will be carried out regularly to ensure that the land is being used as was proposed.
 We are also conducting a review of waste permits, which will include the exemptions regime, and we will consider the issues of enforcement and inspections. The amendments would bring a third party, landfill operators, into the inspection regime. I understand that they may be concerned about competition. However, the Environment Agency is clearly the competent authority to deal with waste management licensing in England and Wales, and it is for the agency to determine the frequency of inspection, rather than leaving it to the discretion of landfill operators. It can then determine the interests of all those parties who are likely to be affected. We have been considering the issue for a long time, and I hope that we will reach some real conclusions.

Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister's reassurances are commendable. I especially appreciated his statement that every site that is currently exempt from inspection under waste management regulations will be inspected annually and that, in future, the Government will ensure that the grounds given for landscaping, for example, are genuine, rather than merely a way of making money by dumping rubbish and then capping it.
 I asked one other question, however, which the hon. Member for Lewes added to, about the number and quality of the Environment Agency's inspectors. Perhaps the Minister believes that my assertion that the quality is not high enough and that the inspectors are doing the easy jobs rather than the difficult ones is unfair. If so, or if he does not know the answer, will the Department talk to the British Metals Recycling Association and to the Environmental Services 
 Association about the quality and number of staff that the Agency uses to inspect regulated sites?

Michael Meacher: I am quite prepared to respond positively to that, although obviously I cannot comment immediately on either the quality or the number of staff available. In many organisations there is always room for improvement in standards of expertise and in numbers of personnel, although given the increases in resources that the Environment Agency has received in the last four or five years, I think that both of those have improved. However, I am quite prepared to draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the agency's chairman and chief executive, and to have with a discussion with the two organisations that he mentioned. If he hon. Gentleman writes to me in due course, I tell him the consequences of that discussion.

Norman Baker: I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but the chief executive of the Environment Agency has on occasion brought matters to the attention of hon. Members, rather than the other way round. Notwithstanding the agency's extra resources, the number of inspections that it carries out has fallen by about a third since 1997, under the guise of an allegedly more targeted approach. For instance, although there is supposed to be a check on industrial discharges to rivers every four years, which is a 25 per cent. check on discharges, in some areas of the country that rate is down to 3 per cent. Even under the present arrangements the agency is simply not coping with the number of inspections that it should carry out, never mind having extra responsibilities forced on it.

Michael Meacher: Again, I cannot check the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I am aware that the level of inspections is well short of what some of the agency's responsibilities require, and that in some cases the number might have fallen since 1997. However, I do not believe that that is the general picture.
 The chief executive never ceases to tell me that the agency's problem is the continual and rapid yearly increase in its duties which is a result of EU directives. Those increases are quite substantial, so the agency is trying to stay level while running fast. We are trying to improve its resources and manpower so that it can get further ahead, but the race is continual. One could say that the way out is to slow down the pace of EU legislation, and many hon. Members probably think that that is so. However, the EU legislates on many, if not most, environment matters in which there is a need for improvement, and it is the main enforcement mechanism.

Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I am allowing myself to be dragged further from the main point, so this had better be the last intervention.

Jonathan Sayeed: Let me give another reason for the amendment, almost in the agency's defence. It has now taken responsibility for main rivers, and although that
 makes sense, I am not aware that it has received extra funding from the Government for that additional task.

Michael Meacher: These matters are fairly peripheral to the amendment. We are considering the entire range of the agency's duties and responsibilities, and we are asking whether a recent change has been fully funded. I cannot answer that directly, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to press the point, he can write to me and I can have it checked.
 I am sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. Those are not just soft words; we will issue a major consultation paper in the next few months that will examine waste management regulation exemptions far more thoroughly than ever before. We are considering the issue in a broader way than the amendment would achieve. I hope that after this slightly diffuse discussion the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will feel satisfied that we have taken his point on board and that there is no need to press the amendment.

John Hayes: Yes, I am impressed with the Minister's assurances about tightening the enforcement and inspection regime. It is clear that that determination permeates the Bill, and it has been reinforced by the Minister's comments. It is important that the Committee has recognised that there is a loophole. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Scheme regulations

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 11, page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to 'make' and insert 
 'The Secretary of State must'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 25, in 
clause 11, page 8, line 18, leave out 
 'in relation to its area'.
 No. 23, in 
clause 11, page 8, line 19, after 'allowances', insert 
 'following formulae agreed with the Government'.
 No. 26, in 
clause 11, page 8, line 23, after 'registers', insert 'by the allocating authority'.

Bill Wiggin: The amendments appear small and not overly wordy, but their purpose is important, as it has to do with the burden of responsibility for definitions. Amendment No. 24 seeks to shift responsibility from the allocating authorities to the Secretary of State. That would be constructive because providing for determining the amount of biodegradable municipal waste in an amount of waste could be interpreted very differently by allocating authorities in different parts of the country. That is the nub of the issue.
 The Bill seeks to cut the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfill. Unless we have one authority to determine the definition, different levels will occur in different areas. Trade between the different areas will only compound the problem. As we consider the regulations under subsection (1), we can see why it is important that the Secretary of State, rather than the allocating authority, should make provision for the purpose of carrying into effect the chapter's provisions. I have helpfully added that it would, if necessary, be possible to agree a formula with the Government for the allocating authorities. 
 The important point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned, is that we compare like with like, and the amendments seek to achieve that. They may not be in the best place in the Bill, and they may not be worded in the most eloquent fashion, but the Minister will understand that it is important that we have a uniform approach to waste. The present wording could allow authorities to differentiate between types of waste. I hope that the amendment will be seen in a constructive light and that the Committee will accept it.

Michael Meacher: I am a bit surprised by the amendment because we have touched previously on the devolution of responsibilities between the Government in Westminster and other parts of the UK administration. I made it clear then, and will again now, that I cannot accept changes that run counter to the devolution agenda and that—rightly—would not be acceptable to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
 Protection of the environment is generally a devolved matter. That is right, and I should have thought that it was widely accepted. It is for those Administrations to make the regulations required to cover all aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas. The Secretary of State should not become involved in how those matters are handled in other UK countries once the initial maximum amounts of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to go to landfill have been specified. That is the key point; it is what the directive requires. We have to lay down the mechanisms by which it will be done—the points in each target year and at each inter-target year stage, and the levels that have to be reached to ensure that the targets are achieved and the final target met in 2016 to 2020. So long as the target figures are reached, how that is done is a matter for the devolved Administrations. I am surprised that that is not widely accepted. 
 As regards amendment No. 27, regulations under clause 11 may provide for registers to be maintained on matters relating to landfill allowances. Who should maintain such a register will depend on the type of information that a register will contain—

David Amess: Order. We have not reached amendment No. 27; we are on amendments Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26.

John Hayes: The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of aesthetics. In no way should the aesthetics of this kind of debate be adulterated by inefficiencies in paperwork. We should focus on the
 elegance, style and panache with which the Minister is delivering his speech, rather than being pedantic about its content.

Michael Meacher: That was a marvellous speech, and one that should be recorded in the annals of Hansard with all the credit that it deserves. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
 Mr. Amess, you are right to say that amendment No. 27 appears in the next set of amendments; I was reading ahead in my brief. Nevertheless, as I said, it runs contrary to the devolution agenda.

Bill Wiggin: When the Minister touched on devolution in the first part of his speech, I was tempted to make a joke about the waste Lothian question. At that point, he was talking about target and non-target years. He has no problem in insisting on intervening to ensure that the maximum weight of biodegradable waste in each scheme should be set during target years, whereas he is happy to leave it to the devolved Governments in non-target years.
 The problem lies in determining the amount of biodegradable waste within a given amount of waste. The percentage of the waste in a dustbin that is biodegradable does not change depending on whether we are in a target year. That is why I felt that it would be helpful if the Minister maintained a formula to help devolved Governments to decide how much of that dustbin waste qualified.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a distinction between target years, when we have to meet target figures, and inter-target years, when there is some latitude, although we cannot allow it to stretch far. There is a default formula in case we seem not to be on track. We are talking about the detailed minutiae of how the figures will be achieved, and I do not think that it is for the allocating authority for the UK to determine what proportion of biodegradable municipal organic waste should be put in a particular dustbin. It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to specify that sort of detail; it should be left to the devolved Administrations. I should have thought that even they would devolve that decision much lower.

Bill Wiggin: As I understand the Minister, when the people in Scotland work out the quantity of biodegradable waste from their waste stream, and when it is different from the Welsh amount, we will achieve different amounts in non-target years across the UK. That does not seem to be what the Bill is about. I hoped that the amendment would throw some light on that, but it has not. I may be being unfair, because the Minister was addressing his comments to the wrong amendment, but the point is important.
 The Minister seems to have been trying to tell us that he would like devolved authorities to set provisions and targets, but he has not been able to help me with the problem that they might set different amounts. We are trying to produce a uniform result in order to comply with the European directive, and the Bill fails in that respect. That is why I am somewhat agitated.

Jonathan Sayeed: The fact is that information matters more than set targets. So long as a conclusion is reached in the target year as to how ground will be made up in the intervening years, they are not important. What is important is what is in amendment No. 27—we shall come to that at a later stage—regarding transparency, so that people know where they are, what they have to do and that they can be checked off against other authorities.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful. Does the Minister want to continue with his intervention? I had a feeling that he was about to make one.

Michael Meacher: I wanted to make it clear that what I said was addressed to the relevant amendments, Nos. 24, 25, 23 and 26. However, I referred to amendment No. 27, although that was out of order, because I thought that it had a bearing on the matter. It is not appropriate to impose that degree of detailed regulation on the devolved Administrations. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the whole UK for the purpose of carrying into effect the landfill allowances scheme,
''following formulae agreed with the Government''.
 As I said, that runs wholly counter to the devolution agenda. The Administrations in the other countries would object. Protection of the environment is a devolved matter, and it is for those Administrations to make the regulations that cover detailed aspects of the allowances scheme in their areas. 
 Other hon. Members do not have the reservoir of expertise that is available to me, so I do not object to the terminology. However, it is not clear what is meant by 
''following formulae agreed with the Government''.
 I repeat that the amendment is misguided. The basic framework should be set out in the Bill, and the detailed provisions should be left to the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Bill Wiggin: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way almost before rising. In recommending, through this intervention, that my hon. Friend might seek to withdraw his amendment—I do so in a paternal way; it is entirely up to him—I would say that we must appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, that amendment No. 27 is important and that more remains to be answered. Indeed, that is obviously what the Minister's advisers thought, which is why they prepared such a detailed brief—the one to which the Minister moved with such enthusiasm slightly earlier than anticipated.
 I finish on this happy note. It is a reflection of the Committee that only you, Mr. Amess, recognised that we were speaking about the wrong amendment—a good three minutes into the debate.

Michael Meacher: For the sake of clarification—I sense that there is a good deal of amusement at my expense, to which I have no objection—

John Hayes: Good natured.

Michael Meacher: Yes, I am very good natured.
 Amendment No. 26 amends clause 11(2)(b), which provides that the regulations proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) may 
''make provision for the maintaining of registers of matters relating to landfill allowances''.
 I was referring to amendment No. 27 because it is directly relevant. I shall not go into detail, but it was not a mistake and I was not verging on the next set of amendments. The question that I was seeking to answer is who should maintain such a register, and I provided reasons for its being different from what the hon. Gentleman proposes in amendment No. 26. I do not think that I was entirely out of order, but I am sorry if I gave that impression.

Bill Wiggin: It is clear that the Committee has fulfilled its role in scrutinising clause 11 to the nth degree. I am grateful for my hon. Friends' interventions and for the Minister's guidance. I could find it difficult to withdraw the amendment because of the trouble that I have with the devolved issues. However, it would be prudent to withdraw it because I may wish to return to the matter on Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 11, page 8, line 41, at end add— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State shall publish all infringements under this section in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette.'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in
clause 12, page 9, line 21, at end add 
 '( ) The Secretary of State shall publish all infringements under this section in the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette.'.

Bill Wiggin: Here we go again. The amendment speaks for itself. I note that it has been grouped with amendment No. 28, which relates to clause 12, but I intend to speak to the first of the two amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, the purpose of the amendment is to draw the full glare of public attention to all infringements; the authorities' infringements should be published. I have listed some of the potential newspapers in which publication should be made. That is all that the amendment seeks. It would help if the Secretary of State had that extra weapon in her armoury. It would encourage authorities to fulfil their obligations. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Jonathan Sayeed: There is no doubt that the publication of infringements would act as a deterrent. It would also increase transparency and public trust. I would support all those gains. My hon. Friend proposes publication in
''the London Gazette, Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette''
 I know that that is the normal way for the Government to publish information. I regret, however, that he has been so modest in choosing the newspapers and publications. Had he chosen The Sun, The Mirror or the Daily Star, he would get more publicity. One can imagine the headline: ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers''. It would have been fame for the Minister. [Interruption.] Yes. Perhaps that is too many syllables for those newspapers. Naming and shaming seems to be the current ploy, and it certainly works against local authorities, which do not like to be chastised and shown to be deficient. Even if the amendment is not perfectly phrased, I hope that the Minister will endorse its general concept.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about the need to widen the readership. If the publication is not The Sun or The Mirror, perhaps thought could be given to using local newspapers serving the districts where the waste disposal authorities that have infringed are based. It is important that the people who get access to that information are not the anoraks who might read the London Gazette—I cannot even conjure up in my mind what the London Gazette looks like, and I am sure that many of my constituents could not do so—but those who are affected. The biggest club with which we can beat those councils and waste disposal authorities is local popular opinion, which the London Gazette, or any other such gazette, will not be able to affect.

Jonathan Sayeed: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who is a gentleman of considerable means, does not read the London Gazette—after all, it contains all the court and social events. His point is that such information should be published in local newspapers, which, it must be said, normally better trusted than national newspapers, as well as in newspapers with more lurid headlines such as ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers''. His point is very good, and I hope that the Minister listened to it.

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's solicitude. I suspect that the headline will not be ''Meacher muzzles muck-makers'' but ''Meacher murders muck-makers'' because muzzling is a modest form of torture.
 I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment because the forces of publicity are influential with business, local authorities and the Government. Everyone wants to have a good brand image, which they do not want to tarnish. Publicity is effective partially because it is internalised as a norm, and I think that it is useful. The question is whether publicity is necessary and whether there are other means by which to achieve the same goal. There is also the interesting question of how many people read the London Gazette, the Belfast Gazette and their Edinburgh equivalent. I can see that my hon. Friends have their heads down busily going over page 17 of all those publications, but I suspect that the impact of publication would be relatively small. 
 The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish in those gazettes any breach of the provisions in regulations made under clauses 11 and 12. Such regulations may require disposal authorities 
 to produce evidence about the amount of waste sent to landfill, to have regard to guidance or to make certain returns to the monitoring authority. Those are the compellingly titillating issues that will command the attention and attract the great interest of those who might read about them. The matters are relatively technical and, although I am not saying that they are not important, even The Sun or the Daily Mail would find it difficult to make them attractive. 
 We can all agree that waste disposal authorities should comply with the rules of a scheme set out in regulation. It would clearly be difficult to run such a scheme if the monitoring authority could not obtain proper records. The question is whether the public announcement of those who failed to meet the scheme's rules is necessary or desirable to ensure compliance. I have no objection to naming and shaming—it is quite effective—but I wonder whether it is the most powerful driver. If I am honest I think that local authorities are more likely to respond to the possibility of a financial penalty. The regulations that can be made under clauses 11 and 12 may make provision for authorities to be liable to penalties, and clause 26 makes general provision for those penalties. I wonder whether there is any need for an additional or separate deterrent. 
 Any register that monitoring authorities are required to keep by regulations made under clause 15 could include information about infringements of the requirements of the landfill allowances scheme. Clause 16 would allow that register to be open to the public. I am keen for both of those to be made effective. That is probably a perfectly adequate way of getting the information into the public domain. It would be quite effective if it could be taken up, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, and used by local newspapers, which are widely read by people in the neighbourhood. The most effective method is the risk of financial penalty plus the publicising of the registers, which are open to the public so that journalists can consult them and present the information in a form that is much more likely to attract the attention of the local electorate.

John Hayes: I intervene not because the matter requires a great deal more elucidation, but because I believe that, if we get this right, the political embarrassment of failing to perform effectively and to meet targets, and of not trying to achieve a good objective will be just as powerful as any financial penalty. Applying the appropriate pressure through public scrutiny and the publicity of these issues is crucial to the Bill's success.

Michael Meacher: I am not entirely sure that I agree. The risk of financial penalty is probably the biggest driver. I entirely agree that it would be useful to harness and mobilise the force of public opprobrium. We are then down to deciding whether to accept the amendment, which talks about publicising the information in these rather obscure and arcane gazettes, or to have registers that would include evidence of failure to comply in particular ways. Such registers would be open to the public, and local journalists would have their attention drawn to them. That is a much more effective method.

Gregory Barker: Would the Minister be open to the suggestion that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs press department might take on the responsibility of drawing the attention of local press to these specific infringements?

Michael Meacher: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a rugged party of individualism, should want the nanny state to trigger the attention of local journalists. I would hope that those people are raring to go and that they know where to find local sources of embarrassing information, which is what interests journalists everywhere. If someone in public authority can be embarrassed because they have not done something that they should have done, or they have done something that they should not have done, that is immediately a story.
 If the Bill passes through both Houses, we will have to publicise its main effects. We would certainly put all the new provision on a website, and we would state where the information could be obtained. To write to every newspaper in the country to alert them of that is going a bit far.

Bill Wiggin: I took on board the comments that my hon. Friends and the Minister made in criticism of my choice of newspapers. Given my passion for Wales, I regret that the amendments do not refer to a Welsh edition. Perhaps The Western Mail should have been included. I thought it unwise to get into a dispute about The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian, so I named the papers that I believed were the normal way of announcing Government news items.
 However, the Minister's remarks about naming and shaming are important, and I am grateful to him for being so positive about the principle behind the amendments. What he says about financial penalties is right most of the time, but in election years local authorities are particularly sensitive to public opinion. That is certainly the case in my constituency. 
 I think that, at the beginning of the sitting, the Minister was surprised by the vehemence and the strength of support for the Bill on both sides of the Committee. Once again, he has seen that that support is national, so by getting the whole population properly informed and behind the principle of the Bill, a great deal of good could be achieved. I am grateful for the Minister's principled support for my amendments. I urge him to take away the support that he has received from Opposition Members and to consider including a perhaps more appropriate way of publicising and naming and shaming, should infringements take place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Powers in relation to waste disposal authorities

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in
clause 12, page 9, line 19, at end insert
'equivalent to that specified in section 9'. 
 I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Amess. This morning, we had an interesting and lively debate about how, and at what level, the penalties associated with clause 9 would be set to ensure that a disposal authority was not tempted to pay the fine, rather than investing in appropriate technologies to meet its obligations. Clause 12 relates to the other side of that activity. What are the records? How do we know what people are doing? How can we audit the information that they have? 
 Another query is about the penalty if people fail to keep accurate records. We are concerned about that. On the face of it, one might think that keeping records might be like filling in a VAT return: if someone does not fill in their return properly, they might receive a small fine the first time and a bigger fine the next time. However, I suspect that that is not the case in this respect. I am interested to hear what penalties the Minister has in mind. 
 Of course, one way in which people can avoid the discovery of things that they have failed to do is by failing to keep accurate records. Records should be auditable. It should be possible to prove that someone has been working correctly within the scheme and that the records that they produce are accurate. It should be possible to measure their performance using open and transparent information, to ascertain whether they have exceeded the allowances. 
 One might find, however, that operators have a little deal going on the side and that things are not audited correctly. Someone may attempt to cover something up in association with a landfill operator or someone else. Clearly, a local authority that failed to keep records might be unable to identify where it was failing in its duty, and what it was doing on landfill. 
 We are particularly concerned about any cooking of the books, as opposed to people just being uncertain about what box to fill in, which should be perfectly easy to do. Where people are prepared to commit fraud to cover up the fact that they have failed to meet their obligations, the penalty should reflect the penalties that would apply under clause 9. It should be a hefty penalty. If someone covers up the fact that a disposal authority has failed, the penalty should reflect that.

Michael Meacher: I was slightly confused because the notice of amendments related this amendment to clause 14. That is obviously an error because it relates to clause 12. Once we get over that hurdle, the effect is to ensure that penalties under clause 12 for breaching rules of a scheme are equivalent to breaches of the landfill allowances. All civil penalties under chapter 1 of the Bill are determined by clause 26. The allocating authority will set out in regulations the penalty or the calculation to determine a penalty in each circumstance. The amendment is unnecessary because clause 26 applies to both clauses.
 The hon. Lady made a fair point. There is a great difference between breaches in respect of landfill allowances and those in respect of rules and we would not expect the same penalty to apply to both. Breaches of rules might for example be to do with 
 record keeping, which is obviously important, but no one suggests that that is as serious as breaching the landfill and putting targets at risk. I take the hon. Lady's point and when we determine by regulations what the powers in clause 26 permit us to do in respect of setting penalties, we shall consult and take into account the different types of activity.

Norman Baker: The central point is that there must be no incentive to falsify or obscure records on the grounds that the penalty for that offence is less than that which would apply if the obscured offence were revealed.

Michael Meacher: Once again, this goes back to the basic principle, which the hon. Gentleman raised on Second Reading and which is right, that the penalty for non-compliance must exceed the cost of compliance. That must be true at all points. There must be a sizeable rather than a marginal difference between complying with, often, fairly minor costs and breaking the rules, for which there should be a significant deterrent penalty. That is the basis on which we should determine the penalties. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied. She made a fair point that there is a major difference between the two and that there should be adequate penalties for each, but I assure her that clause 26 governs both the clauses, so I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his reply and the intention behind it. I am still concerned and hope that clause 26 will put in place appropriate penalties for trying to cook the books through failing to keep correct records and hiding evidence of a breach of clause 9. However, having listened to the Minister's words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Powers in relation to landfill operators

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in
clause 13, page 9, line 37, leave out 
 'or for removal for inspection elsewhere'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.65, in
clause 13, page 9, line 42, leave out from 'premises' to 'for' in line 43 and insert 'only'.

John Hayes: The amendments deal with a tightening of the regulations that I hope is practical. They would prevent an opportunity for a miscreant—someone who is not abiding by the terms of the Bill—to store evidence somewhere other than in the place where the offence was committed. That seems to strengthen the provisions in an important way. The process of enforcement will not always be easy or comfortable. If people are determined not to abide by the requirements of the new regulations, they will be both clever and manipulative in going about their business. We need to be absolutely clear about how we are to implement the provisions in order to minimise the opportunities for abuse. The amendments do precisely that.
 Amendment No. 65 deals with premises on which inspections take place and the removal of material for inspection elsewhere. It is important that we send out a signal to anyone who is intending not to play by the rules that there will be no easy escape. The two amendments send that signal and give additional powers to those who will enforce the Bill. I hope that, in tightening the provisions, they go some way towards closing the loopholes to which we have referred.

Norman Baker: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and read the amendments, but unless I am missing something, I do not believe that the amendments will strengthen the Bill. In fact, on my reading, they will weaken it. Amendment No. 64 would remove from line 37 the words,
''or for removal for inspection elsewhere''.
 There is an argument about whether it is appropriate or fair on the person involved for their records to be removed and examined elsewhere—and, perhaps, even falsified by the monitoring authority. It is unlikely, but theoretically possible, although I do not buy that argument myself. If that is not the argument, prohibiting the removal of records makes the task of the monitoring authority more difficult because it will have to attend the premises where the records are kept and stay there for as long as it takes to examine them. It might be a long process and the representatives of the monitoring authority might need to stay overnight. Alternatively, if they leave the premises and return, and if wrongdoing is occurring, there is a real possibility that the records will be falsified between the first and second visits. The amendment does not make sense and weakens the Bill, so I cannot support it. 
 Amendment No. 65 would also weaken the provisions, and I find that curious. It would remove the words in brackets in line 42: 
''with or without a constable, with any necessary equipment or material and, if need be, by force''.
 It would also insert the word ''only.'' Two separate amendments seem to be incorporated into one, and I shall try to deal with both parts. The first part would prevent the monitoring authority from attending with a constable and being able to seize records. If someone has been up to no good and has been falsifying records in a serious way, which has led the monitoring authority to conclude that it needs to attend, and to attend with a constable if it believes that there will be resistance to its attendance at those premises, removing the ability to attend with a constable and to use force in those excessive and unlikely circumstances will mean that the persons who are suddenly sprung upon may say, ''I am sorry, but I am not going to show you my records now.'' Where does it leave the monitoring authority in such a situation if it cannot enforce its will?

John Hayes: I may not have been sufficiently clear. The first amendment relates to the need to be clear about the signal that we send out. It is important to send out the signal that people may visit premises and deal with any alleged breach of the regulations there
 and then. That system is fair and reasonable, but also firm.
 The issue about a constable visiting premises and the use of force is about defining, and therefore limiting, the powers available to the authority that will enforce the law. If that is included in the Bill, the options available to enter premises and carry out the law are limited, not stemmed. Our amendment would leave out the words between ''to enter premises'' and ''for the purposes of''. That does not prohibit the use of various means to complete the other requirements listed in paragraphs (d)(i), (ii) and (iii). I therefore find it hard to understand how the hon. Gentleman can think that that would weaken the clause.

Norman Baker: The words in the Bill explicitly refer to the presence of a constable, which shows the seriousness with which those who drafted the Bill take the matter. I suggest that the amendment, which removes the reference to a constable, would weaken the clause if passed. I do not know whether the monitoring authority would have the ability to have recourse to a constable if the Bill did not explicitly refer to it. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point. If the use of force is countenanced in legislation, it is always useful for that to be explicitly referred to so that everyone knows where they stand. I would be very uncomfortable with the situation that the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting whereby the Bill did not refer to the use of force in the presence of a constable, but where he can suddenly turn up as a consequence of clause 13. That would be unsatisfactory. It would not make the Bill clear, and no one would know where they stood. I am unhappy about that, but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
 The second part of amendment No. 65 is the inclusion of the word ''only'', which is a separate point to the one that was just made. I sympathise with it, as someone entering premises for a purpose specified in the clause may well have other convenient reasons for entering those premises at the back of their mind. Although it is unlikely, they may regard it as an option to take the opportunity to pursue other matters while in the presence of a constable or otherwise. The word ''only'' is helpful in limiting the purpose for which entry is permitted to the reasons set out in the clause. Without the word ''only'', there is the danger that other purposes that are not mentioned could subsequently be justified. For that reason, I agree with the word ''only''. The word ''solely'' could also have been used in the amendment or in the Bill, if that were to be added. 
 I shall make one more point on clause 13(3)(b), which saves me from making a clause stand part speech. I am concerned about the breadth given to persons in the subsection, which does not relate simply to the monitoring authority. Lines 33 and 34 state: 
''An allocating authority may by regulations make provision enabling the monitoring authority for its area, or persons authorised by the monitoring authority''.
 We do not know who these people are. They may not even be members of the Environment Agency, but 
 people whom it may have authorised, perhaps from a debt collection agency or similar agency. Those people can 
''specify the form in which, the place at which and the time at or by which records are to be produced''.
 That is a very wide power to give to someone who is not necessarily a member of the Environment Agency, but who is appointed by the Environment Agency for the specific purpose. I would be happier if the Minister agreed to include the word ''reasonable'' at some point, limit the wide power, specify a time limit or otherwise clarify the power. It seems an extraordinarily wide power to give to someone who may not necessarily be a member of the Environment Agency.

John Hayes: I want to establish where the hon. Gentleman stands. He seems to want to be less draconian about the breadth of the powers available to Environment Agency officials and others but more draconian when it comes to using force, constables and others. Would it not be better, as my amendments propose, to leave the matter clean and clear, send out an unadulterated signal and then make a judgement about the necessity in both points according to the specific circumstances of the event being dealt with? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can simultaneously be both a hawk and a dove.

Norman Baker: Perhaps with genetically modified animals, which DEFRA is involved in, we might get to that stage in due course.
 The answer to the hon. Gentleman is this: I want the clause to be clear so that those who are on the receiving end of it, whether that is a waste disposal authority or whatever, know exactly where they stand. The suggested elimination of words makes it less clear and more open, which is unhelpful in the present circumstances. What I am arguing for in clause 13(3)—which you allowed me to do on a clause stand part point, Mr. Amess—is that words be added to make it clear. The constant theme running through my comments, both on the amendments and the clause stand part point, is clarification. The Committee should reject the amendments, but I would welcome some clarification on clause 13(3)(b) for the reasons that I have given.

Michael Meacher: This has been an interesting debate, and there are important points about the exercise of power. In general, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right, although I take issue with him on his last remarks.
 Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 relate to records that landfill operators will be required to keep about the sending of biodegradable municipal waste to landfills. There are good reasons why a landfill operator will need to keep records and make them available to the monitoring authority in its area—no one is disputing that that underlies the debate. Each waste disposal authority will need to provide the monitoring authority in its area with information about the amount of waste arriving, the amount that it sends to landfill and the amount that it has diverted to other waste management options. One way to verify the information will be to obtain records from landfill 
 operators about the amount of waste that they have accepted from each waste disposal authority over a certain period. 
 I may not have fully understood amendment No. 64, but it certainly looks as though its intention is to prevent monitoring authorities from being able to remove records from landfill operators for inspection elsewhere. The reason for giving allocating authorities the power to enable monitoring authorities to remove such records is simply practical. It will be necessary to cross-refer between the records kept by landfill operators and the returns made by waste disposal authorities. It will be a much easier administrative task from the point of view of the monitoring authority and landfill operator if the cross-checking of records can be done from a central point. 
 The hon. Member for Lewes said that the monitoring authority, which in England could read the Environment Agency, could tamper with the records. Although that could be physically possible, it would be virtually inconceivable, so I do not think that that is even a remotely minimal risk. However, the point is that in order to do its job effectively, the monitoring authority will need to remove the records and take them to a central point. It would not be sensible for inspectors to take all the returns from each waste disposal authority to each landfill site and then to take up office space and possibly staff time in that site as they check through the records. It is purely a question of practicality, simplicity and effectiveness. To prevent it would not be desirable.

John Hayes: I shall make this point for the third time, because it is important. Compliance is likely to be founded on trust. A signal has to be broadcast that this is fair, clear and open. If one is to increase the likelihood that the Bill will be effective, one needs to send out a signal that that will be done in a proper and open way. For the purposes of this intervention, I shall use the parallel of the auditing of a company's accounts. The auditor visits the company, and does much of the work on its site. There has to be trust. A relationship is established, although not an over-familiar one because there has to be a degree of empiricism and independence. I worry about the idea of material being removed, because that might undermine the trust and therefore the compliance.

Michael Meacher: I understand better the hon. Gentleman's point. There is not a very close analogy between an auditor visiting the central office of a major company, where all the records are kept and are ready to hand, and the more diffuse and disaggregated situation of a large number of landfill sites and 121 waste disposal authorities. Waste could go to any of those landfill sites and more than one waste disposal authority could be involved; in most cases it almost certainly is. It is a much more complicated situation. I see the comparison not in terms of openness and transparency, which is a thoroughly good concept, but in terms of practicality. In the case of the accountant, that is a practical way for him to do his work, and in the case of landfill sites the way that I am proposing is the most practical.
 Amendment No. 65 concerns entering the premises of a landfill operator. The intention behind it seems to 
 be to prevent monitoring authorities from entering such premises with the police, with any necessary equipment or material, or by force. Those are sensitive matters. I have made this point, but I shall stress it again: it is vital that the monitoring authorities for each country in the UK have access to the records of landfill operators. They form an essential cross-check on the returns made by waste disposal authorities. What happens if the landfill operator does not comply? We hope and expect that landfill operators will comply with the requirement to keep records and to produce them for inspection. However, any law has to contain a mechanism to enforce it in respect of the few individuals in any large group who do not obey the rules. The monitoring authority must have the power to access such records. In those circumstances, it is important that the Bill permit the use of force to enter premises. Nobody wants to use force unless there is no other way of obtaining the information.

John Hayes: My anxiety about the Minister's rejection of the amendment is that it will send out an unhelpful message. In addition, if the Bill were to be amended in the way that we are proposing, and we were left with the words
''to enter premises . . . for the purposes of finding records . . . inspecting . . . and copying them'',
 that would not preclude, in extreme circumstances, the means of doing so including the use of other agencies such as the police. Am I right in making that assumption, or is it necessary for the Bill to stipulate precisely the means that the relevant authority can call upon to implement the provisions?

Michael Meacher: Clearly, where there is the chance of a breach of the peace, an enforcing authority might wish to take with it the means of enforcement, which normally means a police constable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those powers are not without precedent. Similar powers for regulating authorities are to be found in Section 108 of the Environment Act 1995. I do not see that there is any other mechanism by which a regulation can be enforced.

John Hayes: The Minister misunderstands me. My point is that we could remove the stipulated means of enforcement, and leave the Bill in a more naked form. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to that earlier. Clause 13(3)(d) would then say that entering premises for the purposes of
''(i) finding records relating to the operation of a landfill,
(ii) inspecting them or removing them for inspection elsewhere, and
(iii) copying them;''
 would not necessarily preclude taking a constable but would not send out the signal that that was likely in normal circumstances. If we removed that wording, would those steps necessarily be precluded? Do we have to stipulate the enforcement powers precisely for them to be available for those who implement the Bill? Is the Minister with me?

Michael Meacher: I think that I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I should have thought that the answer is probably yes. If legislation enables enforcement or the use of power for a particular
 purpose to take place, it is important, under our system, that it says what the mechanisms are. That way one can ensure that the mechanisms are necessary for the purpose but not unreasonable or excessive. Therefore I do not think it appropriate to remove the definition of the mechanism. Keeping the power of enforcement in the Bill but not saying how it would be effected would make me uncomfortable. It is the most minor use of force to obtain a result, and I think that the clause strikes the right balance.

Norman Baker: I have to agree with the Minister. He is right to say that the provision is copied from other legislation and that it is standard. If we removed the definition now, there would be a danger of sending out a signal that we wished to dilute that definition in previous legislation.

Michael Meacher: Those who spend all their time reading and comparing legislation may draw that conclusion. It is a relevant point.
 The second intention behind amendment No. 65 seems to be that monitoring authorities can enter the premises of a landfill operator only for the purposes of finding, inspecting or copying records. I am advised that the amendment is not necessary because the list specified in clause 13(3)(d) is not a list of examples. It is not purely a list of hypothetical actions that could be added; it is a definitive list of the purposes for which the monitoring authority or persons authorised by it may enter premises. That is an important point. The use of the word ''only'' is not necessary. Equally, the use of word such as ''reasonable'', which the hon. Member for Lewes suggested, is not necessary either. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked what the words in line 34 in clause 13(3), an ''allocating authority'' or 
''persons authorised by the monitoring authority'',
 referred to. He suggested that it could mean a debt collection agency, for example. That is not the intention. I understand that the relevant monitoring authority in Northern Ireland carries out some of its operations through a group of inspectors who are attached to it but are not necessarily its employees. I am unsure of the detail. It allows for a slightly different situation that applies in one of the devolved Administrations; it is not intended to allow the monitoring authorities to detail very different kinds of bodies or institutions to have those powers.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that elaboration. My concern is that the allocating authority or, by extension, persons authorised by it, will have potentially unreasonable powers. Under subsection (3)(b), they can
''specify the form in which, the place at which and the time at or by which records are to be produced''.
 They will be able to act in what many would objectively regard as an unreasonable manner because there is no constraint on those powers. The word ''reasonable'' or some other constraint would limit those powers; otherwise, they could specify that records should be produced in three hours. It is unlikely, but it is possible under the Bill. However, it 
 would certainly be unreasonable, even though it was consistent with the Bill's provisions.

Michael Meacher: I understand the hon. Gentleman's logic, but we are talking about the monitoring authority, which for England is the Environment Agency. In practice, what the hon. Gentleman suggests means that the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency could use the powers under subsection (3)(b) to expect landfill operators to provide information in an unreasonable form, excessively fast or in a thoroughly unreasonable manner.
 Unless we are to use the Bill to specify absolutely and down to the last minutiae the detail by which those authorities should work, we must have a measure of trust in them. They are not Government Departments, but they are second best; they are closely associated with the Government. I hesitate to say it, but the authorities are also at arm's length. They are independent and sovereign bodies, but they have a close relationship with Government. The suggestion that they would behave in a thoroughly unreasonable way and that we should specify in excessive detail what they can or cannot do is going too far.

Norman Baker: I am sorry to delay the Committee further. First, this applies not only to the Environment Agency but to all persons authorised by the monitoring authorities, which is one stage further away from the agency. Secondly, as the Minister knows, the concept of reasonableness pervades our legislation. Why should he resist it here?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has gone back to the phrase in subsection (3),
''or persons authorised by the monitoring authority'';
 the suggestion being, in effect, that the Environment Agency can pick on another organisation to carry out some of its key responsibilities on landfill allowances. That simply will not happen in England. It is a job for the agency's own officers. I am told that one of the devolved Administrations has a slightly different organisational pattern, and the provisions is designed to allow for that. There is nothing beyond that; there is nothing sinister about it, and it is not intended to harness or manipulate other organisations to do that rather sensitive work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that explanation, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: I do not think that we need to spend much more time on this amendment. We have important matters to deal with in later clauses. The Minister used the word ''trust''. Trust is vital, because compliance will be founded on it. The messages that we sent out about trust are important, but one needs a stick as well as a carrot. The hon. Member for Lewes, in his rather befuddled state, which is understandable, given the tortuous train journey that he has to make—he said earlier that he was confused—said that he wanted to be harsh in respect of force and constables, but that he did not want to be too harsh about precisely what the monitoring authority did in carrying out its work.
 There was a certain confusion in what the hon. Gentleman said, but notwithstanding that I thought 
 that clarity had developed between the principal parties. For that reason, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Monitoring information: registers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: I want to repeat a point that was made earlier. It also relates to clauses 14 and 16, but I did not want to delay the Committee more than necessary, nor to rush through these brief and fairly uncontroversial clauses.
 With regard to information and its publication in the registers, and particularly where public access is concerned, it is important that the form is constant. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire used the term ''common'', but common is not something that I would ever aspire to be, and so let us say that the registers should be of a constant or uniform nature, and that they should also be explicable, comprehensible and clear. That is not a minor point, because, when dealing with such matters, we must be mindful of our concerns that Government and local government information is not always like that. 
 If we are to enforce the legislation in a way that encourages scrutiny, not simply by the bodies designed for that purpose, but by the wider public, as referred to earlier in our proceedings, we need to ensure that the information is readily available, easily compared and comprehensible. That point applies to clauses 14 and 15 and, perhaps particularly, to clause 16. However, I make the point at this juncture, so that it may be applied across the three clauses.

Michael Meacher: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman a full assurance on that matter. We must rid ourselves of the perplexing descriptions of the allocating authority and the monitoring authority, and agree that what we are discussing is the regulations that the Secretary of State will issue to the Environment Agency on how the information will be made available to the public. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that whether the word used is ''common'' or ''constant'', the information should be produced in a standardised way; it should not vary unreasonably across the country, and it should certainly be comprehensible. That covers the points that we have already mentioned.
 I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we agree on the importance of the public being, as far as is possible, participants in the process and on the need for people to be aware of what is happening in their area. Indeed, some of the more informed or interested people, who are sometimes members of non-governmental organisations, should be able to ask questions based on the information and thereby hold the relevant local bodies to account. I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, to enable that to 
 happen, we intend to ensure that the registers are common—or constant—and comprehensible. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Registers: public access

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments on the last clause, and I wondered whether he might consider the use of a website for imparting information about registers.

Michael Meacher: I am pleased to give that assurance. In the technological age in which we have been living for some years, information should not only be posted on noticeboards and in newspapers; it should regularly—or perhaps routinely—be put on a website. I am pleased to say that all information will be posted on the website.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Strategy for England

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
clause 17, page 11, line 19, leave out 'reducing'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 55, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 20, insert 'reducing' before 'the amount'.
 No. 56, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 22, insert 'reducing' before 'the amount'.
 No. 57, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 23, at end add— 
 '( ) reducing the quantity of waste arisings, including waste arisings from households, by 2010 from 2002 levels, 
 ( ) providing every household with a separate collection for the recycling of dry recyclable waste, and 
 ( ) providing every household with either a home composter or a separate collection of biodegradable waste.'.
 No. 58, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 27, after 'by', insert 
 'waste minimisation, reuse of waste products,'.

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. There seems to be an inconsistency with the Government's amendments in a later group. I say that now to give the Minister enough time to consult his officials to see whether my reading is correct. The Government intend to strike out subsection (5), which would give waste disposal authorities extra powers to include requirements about the separation of waste by the waste collection authority. Reference also appears to be made to subsection (4), which would be struck out under amendment No. 61. If I have understood that correctly, I am slightly confused as to what the Minister is trying to do. If I have misunderstood, there is enough time for him to correct my misunderstanding.

Michael Meacher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess, I am not sure whether this is a matter for you or me. If it is for me, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the third group of amendments to the clause. With characteristic generosity he has given me time to gather my thoughts on the matter, which I appreciate, so that when we come to it I shall be able to give him an informed answer. Perhaps I can take note of those points and we can move to the first set of amendments.

Bill Wiggin: Here we go, once again, on the widening of the Bill. That will appeal to the Minister's better nature.

John Hayes: He hasn't got one.

Bill Wiggin: I hope he has.
 The amendments will change somewhat the nature of the Bill because they will include the waste hierarchy, which we can all agree is extremely important. By taking out the word ''reducing'' in subsection (1) and putting it before 
''the amount of biodegradable waste from England that goes to landfills''
 and 
''the amount of biodegradable waste from outside England that goes to landfills in England'',
 we can add the proposed new paragraphs detailed in amendment No. 57. I hope that that will widen the Bill and improve its quality. We want to include as much as possible the desire that waste be recycled or reused rather than incinerated. That is important because although the Secretary of State's strategy does not deal with reducing landfill alone, it does not include the upper echelons: waste minimisation, recycling and composting at home. By including those we can accelerate towards the targets, rather than trigger an increase in incineration, which is my worry. Later amendments will touch on the issue. All the time we are trying to increase what is done before reaching the landfill conundrum. If every household had a home composter or a separate collection of biodegradable waste, we could perhaps do more, better and faster. That would help us achieve the targets better. 
 There are other amendments in the group, to which hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not take too much time. However, the amendment is constructive. Friends of the Earth has studied the amendments and I am grateful for its help.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a good point, which is about the Bill's lack of an holistic, national strategy for recycling, composting, reuse and minimisation. Does he think the Government are reluctant to articulate a really bold national strategy in this or any other Bill because they probably know full well that such a strategy will, rightly, prompt questions about national funding, and that they will not be able to dodge the resourcing issue that we have seen them attempting to dodge all the way through the debates on this legislation?

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention; I agree with him. I do not wish to detain the Committee. Unless I have misunderstood the Minister's intention, we should accept the
 amendments quickly and without a great deal of debate. That would be helpful, and I look forward to his greeting them with open arms.

Jonathan Sayeed: I offer my hon. Friend my support. The amendments require a much broader and more comprehensive waste strategy than that outlined in the Bill. I also urge that similar requirements be placed on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through equivalent amendments to clauses 18, 19 and 20. It is crucial that the Bill, in persuading councils to turn away from landfill, does not drive them towards incineration rather than encouraging them towards minimisation, reuse and recycling.
 Although I accept that the Minister often talks about and believes in the waste hierarchy, there is nothing in the Bill that promotes recycling over and above the burning of waste. The amendments would add to the duty to produce a strategy for reducing biodegradable waste, duties to put into effect waste minimisation and to provide all homes with doorstep recycling and composting. The duty for doorstep recycling is particularly important. It encourages higher participation and results in higher quality materials that are less contaminated. It allows all households to do their bit and to become part of a waste-minimising, waste-recycling, greener society. 
 Relying on bring banks makes it difficult for elderly people, those without cars and those who find it difficult to take things a long distance in order to get them recycled to participate. Doorstep recycling is important because it is more convenient and encourages greater participation. That point was endorsed by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in March 2001, when it said: 
''It may seem rather obvious but if householders are to recycle their waste, they must be given the opportunity to do so relatively easily. In practice, this means that kerbside collections of recyclable materials are required . . . Kerbside collections are much more convenient for householders than taking separated materials for recycling to 'banks' around the locality. For many years, such 'banks' or 'bring sites' have been the main method of collection . . . but they suffer from many limitations. They require collection, sorting and a journey for the householder, the banks themselves often become full or soiled and this acts as a disincentive to further efforts to recycle. The simplest argument against 'bring sites' being the main future route of collection is a logistical one: while there continues to be a kerbside collection of the 'black bag' of waste materials from every household, it makes sense to try and include the collection of recyclables in that system.''
 That report was supported by Government—at least my reading of the Government's response to it was that they supported the proposition. My question is, therefore, why is it not included in the Bill? We clearly need a degree of flexibility for local authorities in different areas with different circumstances. In some densely populated urban areas, bring banks may be more feasible. I think in particular of those in high-rise flats, although it is a problem that has been overcome in places like Germany. The Government need to think more imaginatively and more comprehensively about how we deal with waste. 
 I hope that the Government will not seek to water down the provisions of the private Member's Bill on municipal waste recycling introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan 
 Ruddock). It was supported by the Government on Second Reading. The Minister entered a series of caveats about what he could or could not support. It will be regrettable if we end up with piecemeal legislation that does not deal with the fundamental problem. The problem with this Bill at the moment is that there is no disincentive to incineration. There is no encouragement for recycling. As a consequence we may move from one bad way of dealing with waste to another.

Norman Baker: I am happy to concur with all the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I return to a point that I and others in the Committee made at an earlier stage: the Bill is about implementing the European Union landfill directive, not about implementing the Government's waste hierarchy and waste strategy. It is one element. The Minister put up a brave case to refute that accusation, but the first line of the clause states:
''The Secretary of State must have a strategy''.
 Here we have a strategy. What does it do? According to the Bill it simply seeks to remove the amount of biodegradable waste that goes to landfills. In other words, it is about controlling the landfill problem brought about by the EU landfill directive. 
 It is impossible to have a strategy to deal with just one aspect of the waste hierarchy or the waste chain, if I can call it that. Everything is connected to everything else, as Lenin once said. Labour Members might have some dim and distant recollection of him. The signals that the Government send out on recycling or landfill will affect what happens with incineration, waste minimisation and reuse of materials. If the Secretary of State is to have a strategy—I hope that he will and I fully endorse that concept—he needs to look at the waste hierarchy in its entirety. The Minister cannot get away from that. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I have tabled new clauses 13 to 16 precisely to give the Secretary of State such a strategy. I am a bit surprised that they are not grouped with this set of amendments. I hope, Mr. Amess, that you will be patient with me when I refer to them. New clause 13 asks the Secretary of State to have a strategy for 
''setting of statutory targets for the recycling of waste streams from (i) households; (ii) construction and demolition waste; (iii) business . . . developing a mandatory doorstep recycling scheme in all local authorities within a period of 5 years . . . developing the market for recycled materials and goods in parallel with the increase in collected materials''.
 We also refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in subsequent new clauses. We must deal with this problem on a UK-wide basis. 
 I do not dissent from the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster at all. This is perhaps a slightly different means of achieving the same ends. I will not be as churlish as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and suggest that one is preferable to the other: I simply say that there are two different routes. I would be happy if our route or that proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster were chosen. I would not be happy if we ended up with the strategy set out in the Bill, which does not seem to 
 achieve what the majority of the Committee wishes to see. 
 We want the Government's waste hierarchy to be achieved. They want to see minimisation. There is no dispute about that. They then want to see reuse and recycling. They do not particularly want to see incineration and they put it only marginally above landfill. That is where the critical mass of opinion is in this House and in the country. We will have the debate on incineration shortly, but the signals sent out by the clause seem to encourage incineration not on a par with recycling, but, for reasons that other Members and I shall give, above recycling. The signals in the Bill are wrong to that effect. 
 We know that people want to recycle more. When they are given the opportunity to do so, they take it. If they are asked to take their recyclables to an inconvenient site some distance from their home, they will do so, even though it is inconvenient. They have an appetite for recycling, and when they are given the opportunity for doorstep or kerbside recycling, they take it and the amount of waste collected rises enormously. We know that that happens from schemes that have been introduced by different local authorities throughout the country—whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will know of a very good example from Wealden district council, which covers part of my constituency. It has introduced a good scheme in Polegate and elsewhere, which has enormously increased the amount of waste collected and recycled. From a slow start, schemes have grown quickly, which proves what can be done. 
 An appetite exists for recycling. The Minister has said that he is prepared to agree with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, but that there are several caveats. That is acceptable because he has to clear the Bill with other people in Government, not least the Treasury. However, if that Bill is not passed or is filleted beyond recognition, the Government will pay a heavy price. They will have been seen to stop a measure that commands support across the House and throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will relay that point to his colleagues and bear it in mind. There is no question but that there is support for that Bill in the House. 
 As I mentioned, there is an appetite for recycling—nine out of 10 people would recycle more if it were made easier, according to the Environment Agency survey released on 23 May 2002. Almost 80 per cent. of household waste could be recycled or composted, reducing the need for landfill. The average household produces 1 tonne of waste each year, and that figure is increasing by 3 per cent. a year. 
 The Minister is an honest man, and he has been good enough to recognise on several occasions that the problem is a major one, that targets are tough and that strong action must be taken. However, if we try to deal with the problem in the narrow way set out in the clause—simply focusing on what can be diverted from landfill without addressing the waste hierarchy or 
 waste minimisation points and reuse opportunities—we will fail. 
 Where are the measures in the Government's strategy to minimise waste? The Minister may say that they are working on the packaging directive and bits and pieces here, there and everywhere, but their work must be tied in. Everything is connected to everything else, and it is impossible to have the strategy on only one narrow focus. The Government have had the strategy since 2000, and there has also been the Cabinet Office report, to which a response is due shortly. They are doing many sensible things, but those things must be brought together. The Bill, and the strategy that it sets out, provides an opportunity for doing that. 
 The Government are seeking, almost desperately, to divert the waste stream from landfill. That is the Bill's purpose in the minds of those who drafted it. I agree with that aim as far as it goes, but they have taken it no further. We need a strategy for best practice, which means implementing the Government's waste hierarchy, and I do not believe that the clause as drafted will do that. It will simply shove off the problem somewhere else and lead to incineration up and down the country, for the reasons given by the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and by me in several contributions. We will come to that debate shortly, but it is necessary that the Government's work should be widened. I hope that the Minister will examine that point seriously and look sympathetically at the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster or at new clauses 13 to 16, which we tabled. It is not sufficient to leave things as they are.

John Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to this important debate on an important clause. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned Lenin, and I was reminded that it was Lenin—rather typically, a feckless intellectual among reckless bourgeois liberals—who caused the devastating Russian revolution. We must constantly beware of bourgeois liberals.

Norman Baker: I meant John Lennon.

John Hayes: I will not go on with that, Mr. Amess, because you would not let me. I shall continue with the thrust of the argument that is emerging, which is that the problem is not what is in the Bill, but what has been left out. Most of what is in it is fairly agreeable. We have established that the Bill's objectives command the support of the official Opposition and the minor parties. The problem is that the Bill might be seen purely as legislative cover. That was the Minister's devastating slip of the tongue early in our proceedings: that we need the Bill to provide legislative cover.
 If the Bill were solely legislative cover, it would not be good enough. If it is part of a bigger picture, an holistic approach to a national waste management plan or strategy, it is a useful and valuable tool. I suspect that that slip of the tongue does not betray the Minister's real feelings, but that he believes that the 
 Bill is an important part of a strategy and he is determined to see that through. However, we have no evidence of that. We have the Minister's word and reputation, which I value and trust, but we see no sign that the Bill fits into a bigger picture and forms part of a jigsaw. 
 The amendments give us an opportunity to explore that possibility. It is inappropriate to consider waste disposal and a proper attack on landfill out of the context of reuse, recovery and recycling. I accept that it would be inappropriate for the Bill to do everything. This is not a huge piece of legislation covering those important and complicated issues, but it must at least refer to them and signal that it is part of a bigger picture. The Bill must suggest that the Government see it as one element in the national waste strategy that I believe the Minister desires and that Conservative Members and, in fairness, the hon. Members for Lewes and for Guildford desire. The obligations, duties and responsibilities that are necessary parts of developing that strategy must be signalled in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 57 deals with waste arising from households; providing households with a separate collection for the recycling of dry recyclable waste; and an increase in composting through the provision of a home composter or separate collection of biodegradable waste. Those are important small steps towards the national strategy that we strongly recommend. It would therefore be unthinkable not to include those matters.

Gregory Barker: I very much support my hon. Friend's excellent points, but is he aware that, last year, the Environment Agency commissioned research that showed that people were very positive about recycling? According to its research, nine out of 10 people surveyed on household waste claimed that they would be very likely to sort rubbish for recycling if the local council provided containers. The strategy unit commissioned MORI to inform its report. It found that the demand for kerbside collection services was high. Three in four people say that they would recycle more if such services were available to them.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes an important point: half the battle on recycling concerns the quality of collection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said many times during his time on the Front Bench, half the battle is separating collections effectively and communicating that to the public, so that they know how to present their waste in a form that can easily be recycled and can be confident that recycling will take place. As was said earlier in Committee, there is concern that once rubbish has been collected, it all ends up in the same bin and not even the majority of it is properly recycled. Public confidence is important. Effective provision, in which the public can believe, must be available. In those circumstances, people will, undoubtedly, buy into the principle of recycling, which, along with the reduction of landfill, must be regarded as a key part of the strategy. The importance of the amendments is that they signal that link and that connection clear. Further legislation will be required, but they facilitate the opportunity for us to legislate in other areas to make that desired end a reality.
 The second important issue thrown up by this brief discussion is incineration. I do not want to spend long on that subject now because we shall debate it in a few moments, but if we are to be serious about the waste hierarchy and to create distance between good and poor practice, we must not simply transfer our priority from landfill to incineration. However, there are legitimate concerns that that may happen unless we firm up our priorities at this stage. That was well articulated on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who made an excellent contribution and has expertise in the field—considerably more expertise, I suspect, than I have. That important point should be signalled now. If it is not, the wrong message will be broadcast and the Bill will be seen merely as a legislative cover. 
 The Minister described the Conservative party earlier, in an unwise remark, as a party of rugged individualism. How could he possibly call the party of Burke, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury a party of rugged individualism? The amendments suggest that we believe in obligation and responsibility. Our approach to waste is to reinforce responsibility and a sense of continuum—it appears that we are about to hear an intervention on Conservative philosophy.

Alan Whitehead: I was just going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the party of rugged individualism favours centralised planning. I also wanted to reflect on the lesson of the new economic policy and the final path to communism, which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was articulated by Lenin in 1921 to Sovnarkom, and developed the idea of the partiality of certain moves in that direction, as opposed to the whole picture. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is merely saying that the Bill does not deal with everything and, therefore, is not the best Bill that could be proposed, when it is actually a Bill about waste and emissions trading.

John Hayes: I am rather better read on Marx than on Lenin, so I should be delighted to debate Marxism at some stage in Committee, although I suspect that that might be pushing your indulgence to its absolute limits, Mr. Amess, and I would never do that.
 On a serious point, we believe that waste policy must be part of a continuum and part of a long-term plan that is broad and holistic. The amendments would go some way towards achieving that, so they are entirely consistent with the true nature of Conservatism and are extremely helpful.

Sue Doughty: I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It is an important point, to which the Committee has returned again and again, that we are not here to gold-plate European regulations—I am sure that the Conservatives would not want to do that—but to come up with good legislation that meets Europe's reasonable expectations and to move towards a more appropriate waste strategy. That is the point of the amendments and of later clauses.
 The new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster, none of which I object to in principle, 
 mention reducing the quantity of waste but do not say by how much. They should be more specific. That is integral to reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that goes to landfill. 
 We would support the separate collection of dry recyclable wastes. Like many hon. Members, we favour doorstep recycling and support the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. It is important for doorstep recycling to be available to everyone. Many councils have tried to achieve that, but we are still working towards it in many areas. That would help in relation to the amount of waste that goes to landfill. 
 We have heard about every household having a composter or making a separate collection of biodegradable waste. There are composters and green cones. Composters are appropriate for normal garden waste, peelings and uncooked waste, and I support the idea of every household having them if, by households, we mean houses with gardens. There is no point in those living in flats having composters, but that distinction is not made here. I should like the Bill to say by when such measures should be taken and to propose practical steps to move towards that. 
 Green cones are not mentioned. They are small devices that gobble up cooked waste—the sort of waste that would not be suitable for the composter—and are particularly useful for those with gardens. There is additional waste that cannot be disposed of by either of those methods. We need only look at the statistics: August is the high point of the season for councils that collect green waste; it is when we prune the overabundant greenery that we should have pruned in spring. Spring is the other time when the waste is woody and cannot be composted down. 
 Councils have tried to deal with woody waste in many ways, because it is the sort of thing that, in a landfill, produces a lot of methane. It is amazing how much methane wood produces. My constituency contains a contaminated site that is the subject of a planning application. It has a large volume of wood chippings on it and is leaching methane and causing huge problems. Councils assist in a variety of ways, including providing a ''nippy chippy'': a householder pays £10, and a man shreds the waste and gives it back in bags. That is a virtuous circle. We have considered taking green waste away in bags for nothing if it encourages people to get rid of it ready sorted—then it can go to the most appropriate sort of disposal and not into landfill. 
 On my local council, there are three parties that divide in various ways according to the topic. The Labour environment chair would like to charge 20p for a green bag. I suspect that the cost of doing that is higher than that of giving the bags away for nothing. Although many good methods of reducing the amount of green waste are already employed, we can do more. We can ensure that we put out green bags and that woody waste that will not degenerate quickly in a compost heap is taken away. 
 My other point is that although we would all like to have composters, some people, for one reason or 
 another, will do very little about composting. We must also ensure that they are getting separated green waste taken away from their doorsteps. We would prefer it to rot in situ, rather than have to be taken away at all. We would also prefer to have lots of time to do the gardening, as I did on Sunday when I shovelled the stuff from my composter and tried to breathe life into the roses with it.

John Hayes: I do not want to shorten the hon. Lady's fascinating account of her weekend activities, but is she saying that she does not like the amendments because they do not go far enough, or that she likes them because they are a start? She should be clear, and, we hope, brief, about her view of them.

Sue Doughty: If the hon. Gentleman had not been in the middle of a conversation, he would have heard me say that I agreed with every point that he made, that the amendments did not go far enough and that he identified areas in which they did not go far enough. I am afraid that my gardening enterprise lasted only for two hours this weekend, so my intervention describing it will not be lengthy.
 I fully support the objectives, but believe that there is more still to be added.

Michael Meacher: Having listened to the debate, I feel like saying, ''Oh dear, I have a confession to make.'' Three hail Marys are required, as I have obviously absolutely and utterly failed to win acceptance of the fundamental point. I said on Second Reading and reiterated in Committee, and must now do so again, that a Government strategy or plan does not have to be concentrated in a single Bill. The important thing is that the Government have an identifiable strategy with connecting parts that can be properly located and that functions properly. I insist that that is the situation. This is a debate about waste minimisation and reuse. As I say repeatedly, and as we all agree, those are the two most important points of the waste hierarchy: do not create the waste in the first place, or minimise the amount of waste that is created, and reuse or recover what one can.

Gregory Barker: I heard what the Minister said, but the Select Committee on Environmental Audit Committee has just come to the end of its investigation into the Government's waste policy. If it is true that the Government have a strategy, as the Minister says, why did almost every witness that we called, bar the Secretary of State, bemoan the lack of a strategy and the singular lack of political leadership on such a strategy?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should ask those who formed that judgment. There may have been political considerations, but that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw about the objective and technical assessment of the landscape. We made it clear that we believe in waste minimisation at the top of the hierarchy. This is not necessarily the moment to set out in detail the ways in which we are trying to incentivise it. We are trying to incentivise it, and we are open to any suggestions about how that can be strengthened or indulged further. The cost of
 disposal is likely to be the greatest driver in ensuring that waste minimisation is incentivised. We are incentivising it through the landfill tax and will also incentivise it through the Bill by limiting the amount going to landfill. That does mean that alternatives must be produced and paid for.
 The second requirement is to recover, reuse and recycle—to compost. We set three requirements to deliver that strategy. One was to set mandatory recycling targets, which I set in 1998–99, for every local authority to double recycling by 2003–04 and to treble it by 2005–06. I have already outlined to the Committee the money that we provided to enable local authorities to do that, which I believe is adequate. We also required recyclates to be marketed: there is no point in collecting them and sending them off to landfill sites. We set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme with a budget of £40 million to find innovative uses for recycled goods. It is doing quite a good job, of which there are many good examples. At the same time, we are trying to ensure through a range of measures that incineration does not become the next cheapest option to landfill. Again, I shall elaborate on that in the next debate. 
 I insist that there is a clear strategy. It is not perfect. One can always argue about whether the delivery mechanisms are doing as well as they could in every part of the country. One could say—this is the point of the private Member's Bill currently going through the House—that kerbside recycling is not as universal or effective as it should be. I would agree. However, that practice is expanding fast, and although we are still not where we want to be, there is a strategy. 
 One cannot honestly, fairly and objectively say that there is no strategy. It was set out in ''Waste Strategy 2000''. Nothing will have as massive an impact as a strategy for the whole country, with its 60 million people. The growth rate for the waste that we are discussing is 3 per cent. a year; 400 million tonnes are wasted—enough to fill the Albert hall every hour. Dealing with that is a massive task, but there is a strategy. 
 As for political leadership, that is for others to judge, but I believe that there is strong political leadership. If people think that it is not as vigorous as it should be, I would like to know in which respects they think so—[Interruption.] I am not inviting detailed comment on that, but the hon. Member for Lewes has been trying to intervene.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Everyone recognises that he has a hierarchy, to which he adheres in his mind, as we do. At issue is whether the economic instruments and other measures will ensure that the hierarchy is implemented in order. I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I know that the Minister is committed to, and understands, these issues more than almost anyone else in Government, so I hope that he will not take this personally; it is not intended that way. Why does someone as elevated as the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, Jonathon Porritt, single out the waste policy and transport as
 the two areas in which the Government are failing? Why would he do that if things were hunky-dory?

Michael Meacher: They are not hunky-dory, for the reasons that I have given. The waste situation is not only not hunky-dory, but is going seriously and fast in the wrong direction. It must be pulled round dramatically, vigorously and forcibly, which is exactly what the waste strategy is designed to do—[Interruption.] I will not be drawn on transport, but everyone knows that that is another extraordinarily difficult issue. No one in government will say that waste and transport policy is currently producing the results that we all want; it is not.
 My responsibility is waste, not transport, and I am arguing that we are putting in place measures that will deliver on that. There are delivery mechanisms apart from the higher level targets. Reference has been made to the packaging waste directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. There are also the end of life vehicles directive and the batteries directive. Much of that is Brussels-driven. I am trying to take firm action on junk mail, which outrages me. Other delivery measures are necessary, and we are contemplating them. 
 I insist that, although the problem is bad and getting worse, as we bring to bear those forces—I am almost tempted to refer to the overwhelming firepower that we have been hearing about in recent weeks—we will begin to batten the defences and to overcome.

John Hayes: I think that the Minister is being slightly over-sensitive, certainly about my criticisms. I do doubt neither that there is determination, nor his personal knowledge of, and commitment to, the subject. I do not even doubt that a strategy may be in place. ''Waste Not, Want Not'' is a good document from the strategy unit. There is also the Government's ''Waste Strategy 2000'', and a number of other legislative measures have been adopted.
 My anxiety is to ensure that those measures knit together consistently, and that that is well known and understood. My particular anxiety about the Bill is that there are not sufficient hooks—sufficient points of contact between it and the other matters to which the amendments refer—to broadcast such a message to the wider public. That may be why Mr. Porritt and others are critical of the strategy. Perhaps the Minister does not sell it well enough. Our job is to ensure that the Bill makes the necessary links and suggests an interlocking programme of measures of the type that he assures us are in place.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should be interlocking measures and engagement between the various levers and mechanisms to ensure that the whole machine works in a compatible and effective manner. The only difference between us is that I do not believe that one has to do that all in one Bill. Indeed, it is inappropriate to do so if those measures are set down in other legislative mechanisms, such as EU directives.
 The hon. Member for Lewes thought that he had scored the winning point when he said that clause 17(1) begins: 
''The Secretary of State must have a strategy''.
 However, he did not go on to quote the rest of the sentence, which adds 
''for reducing—
(a) the amount of biodegradable waste . . . and
(b) the amount of biodegradable waste from outside England that goes to landfills in England.''
 It is not the Bill's purpose to have a strategy that is composite and comprehensive over all waste matters; it has one specific purpose. That is what it says, and that is what it delivers. As one advances a strategy, one does not extract all its ingredients from previous legislation and put it all in one Bill, unless one has a consolidating measure, as the Treasury occasionally does, but which we do not have here. 
 It is 5 o'clock, so I will turn to the amendment. [Hon. Members: ''Carry on.''] I should carry on.

Norman Baker: The Minister misunderstands my point. A waste stream is one unified whole, so it is impossible to say that there is a strategy for one bit of it and to pretend that it will not have consequences elsewhere; it will. There will be consequences for incineration, which I believe will be adverse. There will be consequences for waste minimisation, which I hope will be beneficial. The Minister believes that the strategy can be regarded in isolation, but it cannot.

Michael Meacher: I am not suggesting that it should be regarded in isolation. Of course it has implications elsewhere. If any hon. Members think that the impact in other areas is inconsistent, weakening or irrelevant or that it does not go in the right direction, of course it is highly relevant and they should point it out.
 One should not take just one particular element. I do not believe that my use of the term ''legislative cover'' was a slip of the tongue. It was accurate because we will have the power to deal with the amounts going to landfill, which we did not have. The Bill will give us legislative cover to enforce a steady reduction in the materials going to landfill, in accordance with the EU landfill directive. That is its purpose. 
 Of course landfill links in with incineration, recycling and waste minimisation, and that is what we are discussing. All I would say is that those links are perfectly consistent and proper. If that is not the case, we should be debating that, rather than the fact that this Bill is not a compendium.

John Hayes: This is a real disagreement. We have reached such a point despite the good will that has permeated the Committee and the high regard that all of the Committee members have, I hope, for the proceedings. One cannot argue that this is legislative cover to deal reactively with something that has originated elsewhere—as the Minister rightly says, we need to fulfil our obligations under the EU directive—while claiming that it is part of an ambitious, proactive strategy with long-term vision.
 I hope that it is the latter, and at least that it will not impair the latter, but that it will fit in. I hope that there will be significant signals in the Bill—interlocking points, references and arguments, such as those raised by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster—which broadcast that fact 
 and facilitate the relationship between this legislation and other measures that might form part of that strategy. That is the simple difference between us.

Michael Meacher: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I am immensely relieved that the strong, robust relationship that we have formed during the proceedings is not to be shattered, because I agree that we need interlocking points and points of connection between the Bill and the rest of the strategy.
 I believe that we have a strategy that is broadly acceptable. Does the Bill in any way undermine that strategy, weaken it or send it off in the wrong direction? If the answer is yes, that is what we should be talking about in the Committee.

Gregory Barker: But does the Minister accept that there is one huge, glaring omission in the Bill? The Bill will not merely add to what has gone before; it will actively displace waste into incineration by introducing fiscal measures that will distort the market and incentivise waste disposal authorities to send waste to incinerators. The Minister has accepted the need for a review, but we see no signs of fiscal measures to redress the balance.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I insist point blank that there is nothing in the Bill that incentivises incineration. I hate to impose on your good will, Mr. Amess, because we are about to discuss, no doubt at length, the role of incineration in legislation and how that relates to the Bill. I will give very good reasons for believing that such incentivisation will not happen. There are very powerful levers operating in the other direction, and I will discuss those when we debate the next clause.

Norman Baker: The Minister talks about the hierarchy and the framework, which he says is only an element, rather than the whole, of the strategy. Can he explain why there is no reference to a waste hierarchy in the Bill? In fact, clause 17(3) says that
''recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery or energy recovery.''
 are to be treated equally.

Michael Meacher: We can debate that part of the Bill, although it is not what we are debating now. I dispute the hon. Gentleman's claim. One does not need to mention the waste hierarchy in every Bill to show that one believes in it. The Government have published their ''Waste Strategy 2000'', and until they publish one that supersedes it, it remains, rightly or wrongly, the Government strategy. It may be open to criticism, but that is the strategy, and we are operating in accordance with it.
 I shall try to make some rapid progress on amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56, which are consequential to amendment No. 57, which is rather more substantial. Amendment No. 57 would require the strategy to reduce, by 2010, waste arisings from households from 2002 levels, and that is a very important driver. The amendment seeks to provide every household with a separate collection of dry recyclables and either a home composter or a separate 
 collection of biodegradable waste. The hon. Member for Guildford waxed eloquent on all of those. 
 I agree that those are important issues. However, we are already looking at ways in which we can achieve waste minimisation, which is central to reducing the growth in waste. The strategy unit recommended a package of measures to reduce waste, with a target of cutting waste growth from 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. That might seem modest, and I think that it is, but if we can achieve that we will start, for the first time, to go in the other direction. Waste growth has to come down to nought and to minus 1 or minus 2, but we are a long, long way from achieving that. Let us first get from 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. We will be looking at that extremely seriously.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: Yes, but I hope to get through this before 6 o'clock.

Norman Baker: Honestly, to say that we are going to reduce growth from 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. is an admission of failure before we even start. That is like the Government's road traffic reduction targets, which are not about reducing traffic at all but about reducing the growth in traffic. The Minister is saying that growth will continue, whereas we must do something to get into minus figures. I hope that the Minister will not accept the plus figure as a halfway house.

Michael Meacher: I am the first to say that it is a modest target. However, the occupational hazard of activists like the hon. Gentleman, and I respect his enthusiasm and commitment, is that they set very stretching but unrealistic targets. We do not achieve them, and everyone loses heart and thinks that nothing can be done. It is important to set more difficult but relatively modest targets, and then we can cut them further. It would be easy to say that we were aiming for minus 1 per cent. by 2006—that is the sort of easy target that some indulge in—but I would much prefer a more modest target. Even so, it will not be easy to achieve 2 per cent.

John Hayes: I want to wrap the matter up as much as the Minister does, but although he is right about targets, we have to be cautious. Targets should be ambitious but achievable. The Minister needs to be picked up once more on the relationship between the Bill and other legislation. The point is not legitimisation and perhaps not even an incentive—I may even disagree with my hon. Friends about that—but a possible by-product of the Bill is that it would certainly encourage incineration. That will have an impact on waste hierarchy, because people will have nowhere else to go, unless we simultaneously press for reuse, recovery and recycling, as suggested in the amendments. The point about the amendment is that it would give local authorities another method apart from incineration. The Minister must surely agree.

Michael Meacher: Of course I do; I am absolutely and totally at one with the hon. Gentleman. I have done everything possible to set ambitious but achievable targets for recycling. I shall not make a political point—perhaps I will—by saying that we inherited a recycling figure of 6 per cent. The figure is now 13 per cent.—[Interruption.] The hon.
 Gentleman is too sensitive. We aim to get to 17 per cent. nationally in 2003–04, and to 25 per cent. by 2005–06—those are really stretching targets, and we have provided the money to strive for them. They are powerful drivers.
 I do not want to get involved in a debate on incineration, but one of the guidelines that I laid down in September 2000 was that there should be no approval for proposals for incineration plants that pre-empted or discouraged the maximum performance of recycling. There may be cases in which incineration could be the best practical environmental option, and we shall come to that later. However, I am determined to drive the optimal, if not maximum, increase in recovery, reuse, recycling and composting, in addition to waste minimisation. That is the heart of the strategy. 
 We discussed in another context provisions similar to the other two subsections. I agree that it is important to give as many householders as possible the opportunity to participate in recycling. That secures good participation rates, especially for those who do not have access to a car or who are elderly or disabled. It also secures a clean and regular source of recyclate for the market. However, we want to look at these issues in the round. 
 In some areas, collection will not be appropriate to the housing type, and dense ''bring'' sites would be better. Which recyclate should be collected—dry or compostable—depends on what market can be secured for the product. I hope that that is agreed. We are requiring output, in terms of reduction in landfill, and in recycling and composting targets, rather than process, in terms of collection. We agree that that will mean a substantial roll-out of doorstep collection, but that is not an aim in itself. We shall return to that subject in a private Member's Bill. The hon. Member for Lewes should allow the Government the opportunity to pursue what I said on Second Reading rather than threatening me with the possible consequences. 
 Amendment No. 58 would add ''waste minimisation'' and ''reuse of waste products'' to the list of measures to be included in a landfill strategy. The amendment is unnecessary because the national waste strategy is already required to set out policies to encourage the reduction or prevention of waste production. That is the key point; it is already there and we are committed to it. If we fail to deliver, we can be held to account because we have given a very public commitment. The landfill strategy then deals with how to divert waste from landfill once it has arisen. 
 I agree with what the hon. Member for Leominster seeks to achieve, but the outputs are already covered in ''Waste Strategy 2000''. The White Paper, like Banquo's ghost, hovers over us all even if it receives little mention. I hear what hon. Members have said. I say, not plaintively, but vigorously and robustly, that I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn on the basis of the reassurances that I have given.

Bill Wiggin: Absolutely not.

Michael Meacher: I am surprised.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister should not be surprised because, apart from himself and the Government Whip, none of the Committee members is a member of the Government. Every time that he tells us that the Government have a strategy, we are supposed to take his word for it. Quite honestly, we would not have a Committee stage and there would be no need for Members of Parliament, such as myself and my hon. Friends, if all we needed to do was to take the Government's word for it.
 The amendments are reasonable and uncontentious. They do not undermine the spirit of the Bill and do nothing more than add a few very small but important steps to help the Government achieve their target. I am disappointed that the Minister took such a ''heli view'' of what is required. He did not need to be so holistic. Had he wished to, he could have taken a more detailed approach and picked to pieces the details in the amendments. He failed to address amendment No. 58, which covers waste minimisation and reuse of waste products. Such a critical acknowledgement of the waste hierarchy would have been welcome and would have set out the real way to achieve the targets that we all want to see achieved. 
 The amendments, for which Friends of the Earth deserves a great deal of credit, would have been exceptionally helpful, not only to the Bill and to people who agree about what the Bill stands for, but in reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste. We have moved one rung up the ladder by attempting to deal with landfill, but we should be aiming for the top of the ladder. The fact that eight out of 10 people would like to see a great deal more recycling makes it incumbent on all of us to support small but important steps. That is what the people want and we, who are not members of the Government, have the opportunity to bring about a positive step. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will support the amendments. They could be proud of doing so because they do not have to take the Government's word for it that the strategy will be sufficient. The Government strategy may need to be amended at a later date, but we will not have missed our opportunity here today. 
 I hope that Labour Members will support the amendment. There is no reason why the Minister could not continue with his strategy if the amendment were included in the Bill. It does not undermine his position in any way, and unless there is some secret code of ministerial machismo, which makes it impossible for him to accept at least one amendment—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the Minister does not appear to be macho, but he could strut his stuff at a later date, suggesting that he did not give in on a single amendment to the Bill. If he is to give in, however, now is the time to do it. That is why I urge him not to oppose the amendment. [Interruption.] He may well be in the minority, and I hope that he will be when I press the amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Amess: I now suspend the sitting for half an hour until 10 minutes to 6 o'clock. I understand there will be discussions through the usual channels between the three parties. I suspect that it is intended that when we come back we shall discuss the next set of amendments and then adjourn today's proceedings.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming— 
 Amendment proposed: No. 58, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 27, after 'by', insert 
 'waste minimisation, reuse of waste products,'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:–
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Amess: Order. I do not think that cups of tea are allowed in the Committee.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 17, page 11, line 27, after 'production', insert 'or'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 4, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 5, in 
clause 18, page 12, line 40, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 6, in 
clause 19, page 13, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 7, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 16, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 8, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 28, after 'sorting', insert 
 ', but not including incineration'.

New clause 5 - Strategies for incineration: England—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 6 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

'.—(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate. 
 (3) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 7 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

'.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Assembly must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 8 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

'.—(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Department must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 9 - Strategies for incineration: England

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Secretary of State will set out in Regulations: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 10 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Scottish Ministers will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate. 
 (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 11 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

'.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The National Assembly for Wales will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 12 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

'.—(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Department of the Environment will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators

'The Secretary of State shall introduce a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until— 
 (a) each responsible local authority, either directly or indirectly by cooperation with other stakeholders, can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable; 
 (b) all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria, which will be specified by the Secretary of State, which can be met through various ways according to local conditions, which should ensure: 
 (i) extraction or recycling of metal; 
 (ii) removal of organic and other green waste to produce compost; 
 (iii) recycling of paper and card; 
 (iv) recycling of wood; 
 (v) recycling of colour separated glass, or, where colour separation is impossible, recycling as cullet for road building etc.; 
 (vi) recycling of certain plastics; 
 (vii) minimal transportation of waste to keep traffic and pollution levels down; 
 (viii) recovery of energy from those forms of waste which it is economically nonviable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate; 
 (ix) lower energy costs to the locality for energy supply from the local recycling plant—probably only viable with new developments; 
 (x) high quality and regular monitoring of the facility to ensure continued safety to the local community; and 
 (c) the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.'.

Bill Wiggin: That Division was a mere squeak, Mr. Amess. It is a shame that we did not manage to persuade the Government to accept the helpful waste hierarchy. The amendment seeks to crystallise the waste hierarchy by the addition of the word ''or''. It is not a huge amendment but it seeks to separate materials and energy recovery from biogas reduction, composting and recycling. In that small way it seeks to raise the lower echelons of the waste hierarchy. It would have been better if waste minimisation and reuse had been inserted before recycling, but that would have merely completed the plan. What I seek to do is clear from the small amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Norman Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for attempting to insert the word ''or''. As he will have noticed, it fits in nicely with amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and is essential to their success. Without that word my amendment would be incomplete. I thank him for working together with me on that.
 This group of amendments deals with incineration, and I suspect that, in many ways, most members of the Committee feel uncomfortable about where the Government are going. I have little confidence that the Government strategy, as set out at present, will limit incineration. I believe that it will lead to an inexorable rise in the number of incinerators across the country, which I, and most people in the Room, would wish to avoid. 
 Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 seek to delete ''or energy recovery'' from subsection (3). My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I tabled them simply because we do not wish energy recovery to be put on the same level as the other listed alternatives—recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery and so on. The Government have a hierarchy, as we discussed before we adjourned for half an hour. The Minister said that the hierarchy need not be mentioned in the Bill. He said that it exists outside legislation. He said that there is a strategy. Yet when it comes to referring to alternatives, which he must do when he refers to a strategy, he does not explicitly put those within a hierarchy. They are lumped together. 
 The way that the Government strategy is unfolding and the way that the Bill will operate, both through the implementation of the landfill directive and the existence of the landfill tax, will make landfill the 
 least attractive option. I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud is interested in this point. He raised it on Second Reading and elsewhere, but I do not think that he is. I am quite happy that the Government have rightly taken action to put landfill firmly at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, but one must ask what steps the Government have taken to make waste minimisation the most attractive option, reuse the second most attractive option, recycling the third most attractive option, and incineration the least preferred option of the four.

Gregory Barker: Zero.

Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right. I have seen no attempts by the Government to seek to minimise incineration, although the Minister makes the point regularly when pushed. When I asked him about incineration he said:
''I have already said that the Government do not support any significant expansion of incineration.—[Official Report, 6 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 945.]
 That is his policy, and it is one with which we all concur. Unfortunately, it is not the reality. Only four days later, in a parliamentary question, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked 
''how many waste incinerators are planned by waste disposal authorities; what the capacity is of each incinerator planned; and what information she collates on the contractual arrangements for waste disposal.''—[Official Report, 10 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 6W.]
 That is a thoroughly proper question. The Minister, who had said beforehand that the Government did not support the expansion of incineration, listed a page of incinerators that were coming on line. Clearly, his wish to minimise incineration is not borne out by reality—there are incinerators all over the country. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, in his excellent, forensic analysis on Second Reading, gave a clear indication of why it is almost inevitable that incinerators will pop up and down across our land. I hope that he will speak in this debate.

David Kidney: A company in my constituency is very successful in making energy converters—small engines that burn biomass very efficiently with gasification and pyrolysis. The hon. Gentleman refers to incineration as though it is one process—he seems to have in mind the giant, static incinerators of which there are a few in the country. Does he draw any distinction between those and the energy converters of the kind that I have described?

Norman Baker: That is a very relevant point and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. There is a case for small-scale incinerators for specific local purposes. For example, incineration might be appropriate for farms, which face particular difficulties. Incineration is the flower that will grow and cast a shadow over everything else. It will extinguish the sunlight from other options and ensure that they do not see the light of day. That is because a waste disposal authority, in considering its options, is limited to 35 per cent. landfill. It has to make up the huge gap.
 Recycling in this country is, as the Minister said, pathetic. The Government set strong and difficult 
 targets for recycling in ''Waste Strategy 2000''—33 per cent. of household waste and a waste recovery target of 67 per cent. by 2015. They were right to do that in the context of the country's generally pathetic performance in recycling, reuse and waste minimisation. 
 As a consequence of the Bill, local authorities will be obliged to meet strong targets at an early stage or face penalties. I do not disagree with the philosophy—they should face penalties if they cannot meet targets—but what are they going to do? Are they going to say, ''We agree with this; let us try to meet our targets by recycling, reuse and waste minimisation. There is a scheme involving one small firm here and a voluntary organisation there''? They will not do that. They will say, ''We have a major problem in meeting the target in the short time before a penalty kicks in. The only way to do it is by incineration.'' 
 That will be the logical conclusion of authority after authority around the country. Many are reaching it now. They are planning for incineration in East Sussex, in Surrey and elsewhere. As soon as recycling is mentioned, authorities opt with their feet and their cheque books for incineration now. That is what is happening. I am afraid that an explosion in incineration is inevitable.

Gregory Barker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He made a very powerful point that the Minister's evidence has been contradicted by his own parliamentary answers. However, is he aware that the list of incinerators in the planning system will double the incineration capacity from 8 to 16 per cent.? A total capacity of 2.7 million tonnes is in the offing, and that is just through incinerators that we know about. The Minister is misleading us if he says that no major increase in incineration is planned. It clearly is; his parliamentary answers prove it.

Norman Baker: To be fair to him, the Minister said that he supported no significant increase in incineration. Nevertheless, it is occurring.

Michael Meacher: There is a serious misunderstanding here, and the hon. Gentleman has made a lot of hay out of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made the correct point. Municipal solid waste incinerators are completely different from the small incinerators that exist on farms and near hospitals to deal with clinical and hazardous waste are. If they are linked together under the name ''incinerator'', the hon. Member for Lewes is able to make his political point, but that is seriously misleading.
 The number of municipal solid waste incinerators in the UK remains 14, of which two are in Scotland. That number is not set to increase as far as I know, but if it does, it will be by only a very small number. There are mechanical biological treatments, such as gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion, which are new technologies, that can be used rather than mass burn incineration. To confuse them by putting them all together in one category is to give a false impression.

Norman Baker: Had I put them all in one category, the Minister might have had a point, but I did not do so. Of course there are small-scale incinerators, but I
 understand that the doubling of capacity mentioned by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is a fact. Furthermore, there are plans for municipal waste incinerators throughout the country, and I am surprised that the Minister does not know about them. The waste disposal authority is determined to build one in my patch in Newhaven, and many are coming through the planning process.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman has hit on the crux of the problem. To my mind, the easy option for local authorities will be to look at incineration. However, surely that is what happens with a devolved system of government. We should go back to the local authorities and tell them to get their act together and examine alternatives to incineration.

Norman Baker: The fact that incineration is the easy option is the problem. The Minister must accept that, faced with stiff targets to be met in a short time, local authorities will go, and are going, for the easy option.
 Local authorities do what they are driven to do after analysing the signals coming from central Government and the European Union. Those two signals are, first, not to landfill and, secondly, to reach their target in a short time. Faced with that, the answer is incineration. There are alternatives, to which the Government should give preferential treatment so that authorities do not feel that they have to incinerate. We must do that early, but we have not yet done it. Both the Bill and, in effect if not in words, the Government's waste strategy provide for equal treatment for the alternatives to landfill. 
 Members on both sides of the Committee have mentioned the waste hierarchy and the need for the Bill to be more encompassing because the time to deal with the waste stream is short. If landfill is to be drastically curbed but the strategy in the Bill is limited to dealing with the landfill directive—which, by and large, it is—that means that, unless the Budget proves different, the Government will provide no lead in either legislation or taxation to use the alternatives that, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, would be more desirable. The Minister will know that Peter Jones from Biffa has said that there is no need for a local waste disposal authority to resort to incineration, but for the reasons that I have given, I believe that they will. 
 The time scale is important, especially when local authorities are making decisions this year, this month or, in some cases, this week. They must realise that there are alternatives and that the Government are promoting them not simply in an abstract hierarchy but through practical measures. That means that there must be a disincentive for incineration, at the very least through a tax. We do not have that yet, and I hope that we will have it in the Budget next week.

Paddy Tipping: Tomorrow.

Norman Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. My diary is out, so I am grateful to him because I might otherwise have missed the Budget.
 In the Budget tomorrow, we will find out whether the Chancellor has taken the opportunity to introduce such an incinerator tax. If he has not, where is the message to local authorities that incineration is not the ideal solution and that recycling, reuse and minimisation is preferred? 
 Talking about minimisation, the Minister said calmly before we broke for a cup of tea that he expected growth to reduce from 3 to 2 per cent., and he said that the targets must be realistic and achievable. I agree, but goodness me, what an unambitious target by which to reduce the rate of growth. In other words, further growth in the waste stream is being countenanced when we face a crisis and must take urgent, drastic measures to conform with the landfill directive. That is not the reason that we are to move towards incineration. 
 The Minister's figures predict further growth in the waste stream of 2 per cent. a year. Where will that waste go if it is not incinerated? I see little alternative if that growth takes place, and it will because the Government have not actively taken measures in the Bill or elsewhere which will have a real impact on waste minimisation or the reuse of materials. The Minister has done more on recycling than on waste minimisation, and I accept that it is more difficult to tackle the latter. However, waste minimisation is, after all, No. 1 in the hierarchy—that is what everyone says—yet it has had least attention of all. 
 Where is the promotion for waste minimisation? The packaging directive, which the Minister likes to bring up, does not help on waste minimisation at all. The directive aids recycling, but it will not reduce one iota the amount of packaging produced. It simply puts the onus on manufacturers to recycle more of the packaging that they produce; it contains nothing about waste minimisation. We must have a strategy for reducing the amount of waste that households produce. I do not pretend that that is easy, but, goodness me, we need it and rather than pretend otherwise the Government should address themselves to such a strategy. 
 The objections to incineration are many and principled and I am sure that other hon. Members have their reasons for opposing it. One reason is that incineration potentially diverts from the waste stream. The Minister knows and recognises that and has raised the matter before. Incineration is potentially a hungry mouth that operates 24 hours a day to take material away from recycling and reuse. The Minister says that no permission will be given for any incinerator to have that effect. However, it is equally possible to receive that answer and to see a big increase in recycling. 
 In East Sussex, for example, about 10 or 11 per cent. of waste overall is recycled, and the landfill directive will, I think, allow 35 per cent. to be landfilled, which leaves 54 per cent. of waste. It is possible to recycle 30 per cent. and still have an incinerator. There will be such results up and down the country. A third of waste will be landfilled, a third will be incinerated and a third will be recycled. That picture is unfolding in authority after authority throughout the country. That is not inconsistent with the hungry mouth, which is a concern. 
 There is also the proximity principle, which the Minister has accepted and which I have raised with him more than once. If it means anything, the proximity principle means that those who create the waste should be responsible for disposing of it, which does not mean shipping it miles in a lorry into someone else's back yard. However, that is of course what waste disposal is by and large, because the municipal incinerators—not the ones to which the hon. Member for Stafford rightly referred—are large beasts that must take from a large area. 
 East Sussex, Brighton and Hove, for example, believes that it requires one huge incinerator to deal with the waste that comes from the western end of the county, if not from some of the eastern end as well. That means that my constituents in Newhaven will have lorry load after lorry load of waste—it will not come by train or by boat—shipped from Brighton and Hove, which washes its hands of its rubbish and dumps it all in the incinerator in my constituency. Where is the proximity principle when a whole city can simply shove its rubbish into someone else's territory? I mention Brighton and Hove, where there is no proximity principle at all, but that example is not unique. 
 There are also health implications, which might have been overplayed. As the Minister and others will argue, the emission levels from incinerators are considerably lower than they were previously. However, people are still concerned about that, and they still dislike and distrust incinerators for that reason. There is still the potential for certain emissions, particularly if the incinerator malfunctions and the temperature drops. Those are genuine concerns. 
 There is also a concern about the fly ash—the toxic ash—that is produced. The ash does not all simply disappear. As the Minister knows, a large percentage—up to 30 per cent.—remains as toxic ash that must be disposed of to landfill. Incineration therefore perpetuates landfill, because it still produces a waste stream for landfill in ash that cannot be dealt with in any other way. Incineration is unacceptable in that way and for other reasons to which Committee members may refer. 
 I do not want to hog the debate; I want to give other hon. Members the chance to speak, because I know they also feel strongly about the matter. I hope that I have demonstrated that incineration is an undesirable method of dealing with waste, but it is likely to happen, because of the instruments that have been set up and because of how things are going nationally. I urge the Minister, whose philosophy on the matter is not far from mine, to look at what is happening in the country, to analyse what local authorities are doing, to ask each waste disposal authority what their plans waste strategies are, and to add up the number of incinerators being planned. If he does not already know, he will get a shock—there are a lot. 
 Finally, I draw the Committee's attention to new clauses 5 to 12, which were tabled by my hon. Friend 
 the Member for Guildford and I, and which are intended to do two things. First, they would ask the Government to establish a strategy to start a moratorium on incineration, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Secondly, they are intended to instigate a study of the health and environmental implications of incineration. That is the least the Government could do at the moment. When the time comes, I will ask for a vote on new clause 5.

John Hayes: I am most grateful to be called to contribute to this aspect of our deliberations, which, as the Minister rightly acknowledged, is important. It is important because it draws into sharp focus some of the concerns expressed earlier about the effect of the Bill, not in terms of what it deliberately sets out to achieve, but on what it may stimulate and encourage by default. As I said before we broke up for our tea and hot cross buns, the most profound concerns stem from what is not in the Bill. I share the Minister's view that the Bill does not legitimise incineration—it may not even incentive it, except by default—but I suspect that it will produce incineration because those responsible for implementing the Bill cannot find a suitable, convenient and practical alternative.
 The situation will vary. We have said continuously that different circumstances apply to authorities in various parts of the country. Some authorities are already more prepared than others to deal with the effects of the Bill. There are those who are not in a position quickly to find useful and positive alternatives. Some authorities are already doing good work in recovery, reuse and recycling, whereas others are perhaps doing less. I suspect that the easy option would be to incinerate, which is worrying. It is not that the Bill would be a direct cause of that, but it may cause it by default. That is precisely why my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Mid-Bedfordshire want to insert new clause 32, which is a rather better version of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. I say that without unkindness; I am trying to be helpful and to guide the hon. Gentleman towards a better path. Nevertheless, the essence of the two proposed new clauses is to sharpen the Bill's focus on incineration. 
 I shall not anticipate too much of the Minister's response, because that would be impolite. However, he may say, rightly, ''Well, that is not the business of the Bill''—he said that about earlier amendments which dealt specifically with recycling. If one takes that view and accepts the logic of my case, which is that the Bill may cause incineration by default, the Committee and the House will send a signal to the people responsible for implementing the Bill that will be unlikely to discourage what we want to discourage.

David Kidney: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about the official Conservative party policy in relation to the business that I mentioned in Stafford that makes energy converters? Where does his party stand on the recovery of energy? I note that the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Mid-Bedfordshire provides for recovery of energy, and I wonder whether that is official party policy.

John Hayes: It would not be appropriate to broaden the discussion to a detailed chat about Conservative
 party policy on energy—although we might have one around the fireside. You would soon call me to order were I to suggest it, Mr. Amess. Suffice it to say that Conservative Members are leading the campaign to ensure that the Bill does not distort the waste hierarchy by encouraging additional incineration—a cause that the Committee would agree with.
 The fact is that two prominent Conservative members of the Committee have tabled a new clause, and I am speaking in support of it. We happily take the view that to reduce landfill, we need to produce less waste, and that what is produced should be recycled, reused, composted or recovered whenever possible. That is a statement of our party's position on the matter. The hon. Member for Stafford is obviously a student of matters relating to Conservative energy policy. At the last election we made a manifesto commitment for a moratorium on the building of incinerators. Come the next general election, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see what is in the Conservative manifesto and to decide whether he should vote for us.

David Kidney: To put the point in a different way, would the hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between incineration by large-scale municipal incinerators and the modern ways such as pyrolysis and gasification?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a difference between different types of incineration. As for the technological terms to which he referred and the scale of operation that the Minister mentioned earlier, one needs to draw a distinction between the different types of incinerators and incineration. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, a great expert, wants to intervene.

Gregory Barker: I am certainly not a great expert: my hon. Friend must be thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. Will my hon. Friend tease from the hon. Member for Stafford how many of those plants are up and running, and how many of those technologies are included in the list of large municipal incineration projects provided by the Minister in columns 5W to 6W of Hansard of 10 March? He will find that the answer is very few.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is being a little unkind to the hon. Member for Stafford, who I believe made that intervention with the best of intentions. The hon. Member for Stafford is clearly an honourable man—he is a Member of the House—but he is also a kind man, and I think that he was trying to be helpful. It would have been unnecessarily cutting to shoot him down by saying that he was speaking about something that was more of an option in imagination than in practice. However, he is right that that will change; technology will change over time. The hon. Gentleman knows that a lot of work is being done. Some other countries are incinerating a much greater proportion of their waste than we do. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman both know that the European average is about 20 per cent., whereas our figure is just under 10 per cent. In some of those places, different forms of technology are being used from those that we use here. Perhaps, in a further intervention, the hon. Gentleman
 may give us a brief travelogue around Europe to identify the various technologies being used.

David Kidney: It might be said that the company that I referred to—let me name it: it is Talbotts Heating Ltd. of Stafford—is taking coals to Newcastle. It sells its energy converters to the Scandinavian countries, which are regarded as the world's best. That is how good the company is.
 There are lots of energy converters on the market and the market is growing substantially. If there is a problem, it is one that the Conservative party can help with. We need to lose the stigma caused by the broad-brush approach taken by the hon. Member for Lewes, which puts them in the same category as the giant incinerators that everyone regards as very undesirable. They are entirely different and should be able to make their case separately.

John Hayes: I think that the sensible and refined way in which I responded to the hon. Gentleman will, for the whole world, be contrasted with the broad-brush approach, as he describes it, of the hon. Member for Lewes. I do not mean that unkindly; it is not fair to shoot rats in a barrel, and I must resist the temptation.
 Of course it is important that we look to the development of technology. We should take an iterative approach to the matter, and not set it in stone. I do not want to go too far down this avenue, but the fundamental point is that we must not assume that incineration is good enough. That would be an unhelpful signal to send out. It would probably be damaging to the efforts that we hear that the Government are making—I am sure that they are—to encourage all the other good ways of dealing with waste. Those ways were described at length earlier and are supported across the Committee and the House. 
 One issue that we have not discussed with sufficient vigour is waste production, although waste minimisation has, quite rightly, been mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes. I say again that producers of waste—business in particular—need to be sent a clear signal about packaging and other forms of waste production that are increasing steadily. We know that waste continues to increase despite our efforts to encourage recycling. The figures were made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire earlier in Committee. He said that there was a growth of about 3 per cent. per annum in waste, and an increase of only 1.5 per cent. per annum in the recovery. Those figures refer to biodegradable waste; I think that the overall figure is some 3 or 4 per cent., but there are different interpretations.

Jonathan Sayeed: It is 3 per cent.

John Hayes: I bow to my hon. Friend's great expertise. We know that there is a big problem. I suspect that a lot of the responsibility lies with producers. We must be tough on people who produce unnecessary packaging. One thinks of those dreadful hamburger companies that produce the polystyrene and non-biodegradable packaging that I see strewn up and down roads a considerable distance from where the product is sold, having been thrown out of windows. That may be a reflection on people who consume such products, but it is also an
 unfortunate sign of just how a producer's culture can increase both the likelihood and the reality of waste being caused.
 We need to consider the production of waste much more strictly and robustly if we are to cut the increase in waste. The only way in which we will meet our targets is by approaching the matter from both sides. I suspect that if we simply consider what to do with waste once it is produced, without considering the root cause, we will miss the targets. I am absolutely plain and blunt about that; I think that that is what will happen in terms of our strategy for reducing waste and achieving increased recycling. 
 As has already been said, we need to take a robust approach to the information necessary to encourage recycling, reuse and recovery, and the facilities that allow them. On previous amendments—I do not want to go over earlier discussions—we mentioned the necessity of putting in place practical steps that will encourage householders and members of the public to take their responsibilities seriously. Such measures, alongside the Bill's provisions to reduce the proportion of waste that goes into landfill, are vital. 
 Perhaps most significant is the need to send out a clear message about the long-term view, vision, and strategy. I have said that repeatedly, but make no apologies for saying it again. The question of where we are going on waste needs to be well understood and articulated, so that all the interested parties—the wider public, the authorities that have a role in the matter, and the private sector that is so involved in production—understand it clearly. That way, we can go some way to achieving what I hope are ambitious targets in not too long a time. As one hon. Member said, the clock is ticking. This is a time-related issue. The more waste we produce, the bigger the problem becomes, and the greater the difficulty we have in coping with it. To some extent, the problem is cumulative and that must be taken into account, which is why we need a time scale or model for a strategy. 
 For those reasons, I support new clause 32 because it sends out appropriate signals. I accept the helpful intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford about detail. I do not differ from him on the need to be sensitive about details. However, I implore him to support the new clause if it is pressed to the vote, because I know that in his heart of hearts he believes that it is right that we make it absolutely clear that incineration is not a happy or desirable alternative to landfill. It should not be high on our list of priorities or achieve a position in the waste hierarchy that it does not warrant. I appeal not only to the hon. Gentleman, but to all Committee members to take seriously the amendments, and in particularly new clause 32. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, perhaps they could consider our new clause's rather less impressive cousin—the Liberal Democrats' new clauses 5 to 12.

Norman Baker: Cousins.

John Hayes: Cousins, then: we Conservatives managed to sum up everything in one rather pithy new clause. I hope that Committee members are able
 to cut across the party divide on a matter that will inspire and excite our constituents.

Jonathan Sayeed: I have enjoyed my hon. Friend's elegiac rhetoric.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings gave an elegy on something, and, if so, what was it?

Jonathan Sayeed: It was an elegy on a Bill that he clearly saw as failing.
 The amendments remove energy recovery from the list of measures to be included in the strategy to minimise landfill. New clauses 5 to 8 would place a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste, the reduction of incineration and extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. New clauses 9 to 12 would require strategies for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators and the continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions of all currently operating incinerators. They would require waste disposal authorities to produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 We must all recognise that major solid waste municipal incinerators have a range of problems. First, they nearly always require a constant stream of waste over a long contractual period, which makes it much harder to divert waste to recycling. Secondly, they incinerate materials that should be recycled, which leads to the further extraction of more primary resources. Thirdly, they waste energy. Despite my preferred euphemism of energy from waste plants, more is required to replace the material burned than is recovered by the plant. That option does not tackle climate change as effectively as reduction or recycling. Despite increasingly stringent emission standards, there are small toxic pollution risks from emissions and ash. Most importantly—at least, for politicians—municipal incinerators give rise to a great deal of public opposition, which will always pose problems for local authorities and parliamentary colleagues. 
 By contrast, recycling is more beneficial to the environment, and it is extremely popular. It reduces pressure on habitats affected by mining or forestry, creates jobs, saves energy and resources and promotes ''environmental citizenship'' among those who take part. 
 An Environment Agency research paper of 2002, which has been partially quoted already, states: 
''Nine out of 10 people in the survey on household waste claim they would be very likely to sort rubbish for recycling if the local council provided containers. Where councils already provide recycling containers, the survey shows that participation in recycling increases dramatically. For example, whilst only 6 per cent. of the total sample surveyed claimed to recycle plastic packaging, the proportion rises to 59 per cent. of those whose council provides containers and doorstep collection. On the same basis, the proportion recycling plastic bottles rises from 10 per cent. to 59 per cent., and for cardboard from 17 per cent. to 67 per cent.''
 There are very major increases when the facilities are provided by the local authority. 
 Furthermore, the United Kingdom stands to gain in employment terms. WasteWatch has predicted that even meeting a recycling target of just 30 per cent. by 2010, 
''the potential for jobs being created are around 9,200 in collection, over 26,000 in sorting, and over 9,300 in reprocessing. Therefore, meeting the current 30 per cent. recycling target by 2010 potentially could create 45,000 jobs.''
 Such figures have also been supported by Biffa Waste Services. 
 In terms of industrial potential, the Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that the worldwide market in environmental technology is currently worth no less than $515 billion and is forecast to grow to $618 billion by 2010. The UK share of that market is less than 5 per cent. 
 However, having said all that, we must be realistic. Whilst avoiding large-scale mass-burn incinerators on a long-term contractual basis that demand a continuous waste stream and militate against waste reduction, we must also accept that some forms of waste, such as clinical waste and particular types of plastics, cannot be efficiently recycled. Modern energy-from-waste plants compare extremely favourably with other sectors in terms of emissions, and indeed in 1999, EFW plants accounted for only 0.2 per cent. of the total UK NOx emissions, whereas road transport accounted for 44.5 per cent. 
 We need to ensure that the proximity principle is upheld. All new plants, where practicable, should be small-scale integrated waste management facilities that handle local waste, incorporating composting, recycling and energy-from-waste, taking the recyclables out of residual waste and treating the rest. Regional self-sufficiency in municipal waste management should prove more acceptable to communities that refuse to deal with waste that is not local, and here I undoubtedly speak from personal experience, because I represent a rural constituency that is littered with cheap holes in the ground, which are constantly filled by London's waste. 
 We need to ensure that we are not causing more environmental degradation by transporting waste over considerable distances. That is why the proximity principle for all forms of waste should be at the forefront of our minds. It follows from what I have said that I cannot support a complete moratorium on incinerators. That is why I have moved new clause 32, which defines the conditions and criteria for a local waste strategy that must be met before permission can be granted for an energy-from-waste plant. That would ensure that the incentives to reduce and recycle were greater than those provided by incineration. There are plenty of European examples that could be cited to demonstrate that high recycling rates and energy from waste can co-exist. 
 A local authority waste management strategy should be developed in co-ordination with existing development planning, waste planning and regional strategies for self-sufficiency in waste management. That might include co-operative schemes, to meet the authority's targets, with the private sector, local 
 supermarkets, retailers and other stakeholders, according to the particular local context and the specific nature or quantity of the waste produced. Intensive and thorough bring schemes offer significant cost offsets against capital investment in new technology, which would consequently be obviated. 
 The objective is for each local authority to be able to make use of a local integrated waste management facility that utilises the most effective and environmentally friendly technologies, incorporating EFW, and to have the freedom to investigate different technological innovations. However, permission for such a facility would be conditional on the submission of a planned local strategy that demonstrated that the local authority, directly or indirectly by co-operation with other authorities and stakeholders, could provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where that was economically viable. 
 Given the intense pressure from local authorities to divert from landfill, we can all empathise with the plea from the green activists not to look to incineration as a convenient alternative. We need to place limitations on the use of energy from waste and guarantee that local authorities adhere absolutely to a waste hierarchy that places recycling above disposal by either landfill or burning. 
 I know that many Labour Members have spoken on this in the past. The hon. Member for Stroud has done so, and I have heard the hon. Member for Stafford discuss the need for certain types of incineration or energy from waste. I know that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is deeply knowledgeable on the subject. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test attested in his speech on Second Reading to his considerable knowledge. 
 I urge the Government to consider new clause 32. I have given considerable thought to it over a long period. It essentially says that a local authority, either by itself or corporately with other stakeholders, can use incineration but only after it has jumped through a series of hoops—basically that, wherever it is economically viable to do so, it must recycle. It must show that it can collect in a way that promotes recycling and produces the best quality recyclate. After all the hoops laid out in the clause, it can then get permission. 
 That seems to be the right way round. We cannot recycle everything; let us not try to pretend that we can. Some waste is impossible to recycle and some is economically not viable to recycle. There will always be something left over whatever we do; the question is what we do with it.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a very good point but he must not overlook the fact that we already have a significant existing incinerating capacity. We are not discussing whether we should have incinerators, but whether we should have a moratorium on existing incinerator capacity or allow further growth in it. We are not talking about doing away with incinerators altogether. It is the Government's permissive attitude to that growth that the new clause brings under the microscope.

Jonathan Sayeed: I thank my hon. Friend. I assure him that I had not overlooked that, but was intending to put it towards the end of my remarks.
 There are very few municipal incinerators in the UK. If we agree with the concept that incineration cannot take place until all those other things have been done, we have to make a decision: shall we transport that residual waste over a long distance and cause another form of environmental degradation, or are we prepared to license, permit and provide the planning permissions for high quality, well and constantly monitored small local incineration plants? I believe that such plants have a greater chance of gaining local acceptance if they are dealing with local waste.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument, which is entirely consistent with the responsible position that was advocated by the hon. Member for Stafford. It is important, however, to point out again, as my hon. Friend already has, that when we reduce the amount that we incinerate because of the increase in recycling, much of what we currently burn will no longer be burned. That will mean that the existing capacity will be able to absorb material that cannot be recycled, and that, as a result, the requirement for those new, smaller-scale incinerators of which he spoke may be relatively small.

Jonathan Sayeed: That I accept—it is a fair point. It is possible that we will not need to build new incinerators. The question, however, is whether we are then prepared to transport the residual waste over long distances.

Paddy Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman really does believe in the proximity principle and in the strength of his proposed new clause, he must be advocating that the 14 existing mass incinerators across the country should close. In environmental terms, he believes that there is a case for incineration, and that high quality, locally based schemes should play a part in a future waste strategy.

Jonathan Sayeed: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question or statement is that some of those incinerators may have to close, but probably not all of them. We must look at where the incinerators are. If they are close to large urban centres of population, as I know some of them are, the proximity principle and the use of that incinerator can go hand in hand. However, if they are a long way from any major source of waste production, and we believe in taking an holistic view of the environment, they should close.
 The point that I make, and my wish, is that Labour Members, without whose vote no new clause can be passed, should consider new clause 32 and assist the Minister by arming him with the certainty that the Committee wants to produce a cleaner, better environment by having a cleaner, better, more effective waste policy. The best way of doing that is, at the very least, to abstain from voting against new clause 32, and better than that, to support it.

Alan Whitehead: I feel about the clause and about the debate on incineration rather as I do about Arsenal, which is that I was particularly pleased when Arsenal
 recently came to Southampton and were beaten by them, but when I see Arsenal on television playing in the champions' league, I am anxious that they win.
 On Second Reading, I set out my concern about our current and future position on incineration in the UK. On the other hand, the debates in this Committee—and a number of the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled—unfairly attack the Government and their waste strategy: what they do is rather like attacking a Fiat 600 on the grounds that it is not a good racing car. That is true, but it is a perfectly good Fiat 600, and the purpose of a Fiat 600 is to go around town rather than to enter grand prix races. That point goes to the heart of much of the Committee's discussions. 
 I have been particularly interested in new clause 32. What is curious about the Committee is that pretty much all of its members mostly agree on most things about waste strategy. The question is: how do we get there? The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has a great knowledge of Marx, as he revealed earlier, so he will know that one of Marx's key phrases was: 
''The philosophers have only interpreted the world . . . the point is to change it.''
 The problem with new clause 32 is that it has an interesting method of describing the world, but it does not necessarily do the things that are needed to change it. 
 Another curious feature of new clause 32 is that it advocates centralised planning—perhaps Labour Members should welcome it for that reason. It is my understanding that the Conservative party does not advocate centralised planning. The new clause advocates a substantial amount of power being taken away from local government and being centralised, and I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will have at his fingertips the speech that his leader recently made at the Nicholas Ridley memorial lecture in Kensington town hall, when he praised the importance of community self-governance and the removal from that of all concerns of national planning or centralised planning. He did that in the name of Nicholas Ridley, the chief anti-planner of a previous generation.

Gregory Barker: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's entertaining remarks, but they are not wholly accurate. He cannot think that the Conservative party is against a national planning regime, for example. We would wholeheartedly support the reform of a national planning system that would then be interpreted locally. The point of new clause 32 is to set an ambitious national strategy that will be implemented locally.

Alan Whitehead: The new clause proposes that
''all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria''.
 I welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to the idea that planning exercises a central role in the nation's wellbeing. All planning has to be implemented according to local conditions. 
 That new clause refers to 
''various ways according to local conditions''
 but it also talks about centralised planning. I think that an element of substantial planning is important: there is no way out of that for waste management in the future.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is prefixing his U-turn on incineration with this slightly uncharitable attack on the Conservative leader and his party—perhaps, in order to distract attraction from that U-turn. However, I simply say to him that of course it is appropriate that there is a degree of central co-ordination. If that were not the case, we would not be calling for a national strategy. We have repeatedly called for that: we would not have done so if we did not think that there should be some national common element to that. However, the new clause makes it clear that, in implementation terms, that must be sensitive to local needs, and it is clear that local authorities will play a crucial part in the whole process, so there is no great dichotomy between having a national strategy and having local involvement in that.

Alan Whitehead: I am delighted to hear clarification of the Conservative party's move back towards supporting the notion of planning our nation's business. That is very welcome.
 New clause 32 also rather coyly states that 
''the Government has introduced fiscal measures''.
 By that, I presume that they mean an incineration tax, but I cannot be certain because it is a rather coy reference. However, that is a new tax, and I would guess that the rest of the strategy requires a considerable sum of money to introduce, to support and to sustain. Those are interesting developments given what I regularly hear about other elements of current Conservative policy, but they are nevertheless welcome. 
 I shall come straight to the issue of incineration: all hon. Members know the reality of the current situation. It is true that if nothing happens, it is likely that we will shift away from landfill and towards incineration. We should properly take care to distinguish between old mass-burner incineration, energy from waste, combined heat and power, pyrolysis, gasification and other forms of thermal treatment. Small-scale incineration, which consists of pyrolysis through advanced thermal treatment with full heat capture through CHP, is quite an advanced method of recovering energy and dealing with waste. Even if we use that method, the danger is that we will turn to incineration. 
 I have further refined the material that I presented on Second Reading: some 36 per cent. of local authorities currently take part in incineration either as partners or as main players. That does not mean that 36 per cent. of waste is currently incinerated; it means that 36 per cent. of waste disposal authorities take part in incineration to dispose of some part of their waste. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the committee plans, which account for another 10.65 per cent. of those local authorities. The significant point is that about 22 per cent. of waste 
 disposal authorities have medium-term plans that include likely incineration. 
 The ultimate conclusion is that if nothing else happens by the end of the decade, some 70 per cent. of waste disposal authorities will be involved in some form of incineration. However, that will not necessarily happen, which is a central point that needs to be made. A long time ago, I read an interesting book about green shift called ''How to Avoid the Future'', which is what our overall strategy needs to be. We need to avoid that future, which looks as though it might happen if we do nothing. 
 Perhaps we need measures outside the Bill on incineration tax and different ways of dealing with incineration, and perhaps we need incentives on how local authorities work. We need a degree of planning, a number of fiscal incentives and several changes. The fact that such changes are not in the Bill does not mean that they should not happen. The fact that they are not in the Bill does not mean that it should be criticised for their not being there, because it is the platform on which other things will be built. It deals with the question how we can stop waste going to landfill, but other things must happen subsequently. I believe that further things must happen on the future of incineration in order to stop the future that I have set out here from happening. Such things should be developed. Some of them have been developed and the Government are working hard on others of them. It is not a criticism of the Bill that it does not contain such measures because it is about waste and emissions trading and in that sense, like a Fiat 600, it goes along the road rather well.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. May I respectfully point out through you to the Clerk that I am Mr. Gregory Barker and not Mr. Gregory Baker, as I am repeatedly referred to in the Amendment Paper? I should hate it for there to be any confusion between me and the hon. Member for Lewes.

David Amess: As far as that point of order is concerned, it has been heard and the matter will be sorted out.

Jonathan Sayeed: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. May I, through you, apologise to the Chair and to other hon. Members? If we are resuming on Thursday, I regret to say that I have a hospital appointment for a broken foot and will therefore not be in Committee for those proceedings.

David Amess: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point of order. I am sure that the Committee wishes him a swift recovery.

John Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. What my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has said has prompted me to explain as a matter of courtesy that I shall not be in Committee on Thursday morning because I shall be defending the interests of British fishermen in a statutory instrument.
 I have no doubt that Mr. Baker and Mr. Wigley will admirably represent the Opposition's interests.

David Amess: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock till Thursday 10 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.